Konrath challenges the Authors Guild

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

For the same reason the MPAA cares about (destroying) Net Neutrality.

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...ck-sites.shtml

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/net-ne...ng-and-piracy/
http://www.songwritersguild.com/net_neutrality.htm

Net neutrality is simply an attempt to have the government regulate the internet. Some people think that this is a peachy idea and good ol' Uncle Sugar will make sure that they get unlimited cheap internet access. Generally speaking, that's not what happens when the Government regulates.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Usually mockery is an indication that you don't have a valid argument, so you resort to mockery rather than actually address the issues.

Usually attacking people for mockery is an indication that you don't have a valid argument, so you resort to ad hominem attacks rather than actually address the issues.


...

I don't care whether someone uses mockery to underline their arguments. If what they say is still valid.
If what they say isn't valid, then the fact that they used mockery is beside the point.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Net neutrality is simply an attempt to have the government regulate the internet. Some people think that this is a peachy idea and good ol' Uncle Sugar will make sure that they get unlimited cheap internet access. Generally speaking, that's not what happens when the Government regulates.

Are you saying that the real reason people support net neutrality isn't because they want to pirate digital media, but because they want super-cheap internet?

Every which way you turn, people are dirty thieves...

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Usually attacking people for mockery is an indication that you don't have a valid argument, so you resort to ad hominem attacks rather than actually address the issues.


...

I don't care whether someone uses mockery to underline their arguments. If what they say is still valid.
If what they say isn't valid, then the fact that they used mockery is beside the point.

Sometimes humor gets the point across much better than a 2 by 4.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Sometimes humor gets the point across much better than a 2 by 4.

If you want to get a point across a pick-axe is much better than a blunt instrument. ... The thing is, it doesn't really matter whether Konrath is right or not (he usually at least has an interesting point), his humour is much more like a blunt instrument than it is a genuine attempt to persuade. He deliberately ridicules because it makes for a much more entertaining and controversial blog (ie. it's good marketing for Konrath Inc.).

It's one reason why I like Hugh Howey and The Data Guy's approach to this sort of stuff. Their posts aren't likely to make you laugh-out-loud so often, but there are fewer personal attacks and mockery. Being less personally confronting makes it much easier for those sceptical of the situation to consider the facts and opinions presented.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy reading some of Konrath's posts. He's entertaining (for those that aren't the butt of his jokes), and he offers suitable warnings for would-be authors, making it an educational place to visit. But I have never ever gotten the impression that he's likely to make a difference to the old establishment. His style of attack just gets people's backs up, making it difficult to have a properly reasoned discussion.

[fjtorres]

Konrath writes his blog, as stated, for newcomer authors.
(It's right in the title.)

Howey is trying to reform publishing as a whole to accomodate a fast and relatively painless transition to the digital era (ditto for KKR and DWS) but Konrath isn't. He's not trying to reform tradpub but to warn newcomers as a public service.

Revolutions need both firebrands and statesmen; without the former you don't get enough polarization to undercut the loyalists and without the latter you get a reign of terror and a hijacked revolution in the end. Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams and co. helped stoke the fires for the American Revolution yet it was John Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and co. who shaped the post-revolutionary nation.

The early dissenters in the revolutionary era weren't looking for Independence, they were merely looking for a fairer deal for the colonials. If the brits had listened to the reformers they could've nipped the movement in the bud. They didn't and instesd doubled down on their policies providing the environment where the activists could polarize the environment, foster escalation, and turn the mainstream against their oppresors.

In the process they wrote the handbook for successful revolution which, alas, has since been ignored by revolutionary leaders all over except Adam Selene. Who had Simon Jester to do his rabble rousing for him. First rule is you need your Jesters but eventually you have to turn to your Selenes to shape the future.

In the comments at the source and elsewhere, quite a few suggest Konrath start up a true Author's Rights group with him as leader, an idea to which he has so far said nothing. That is, however, something Howey might be amenable to which is why it is him and not Konrath that the traditionalists tend to attack.

Standard revolutionary era politics, really.
The establishment sees Konrath's confrontational style geared to outsiders as a useful way to keep their colonials in line ("He wants us all gone!") and Howey's generally calm calls for reform as a bigger threat because he appeals to the insider authors looking out.

To tradpub apologists Konrath is a raving jester easily deprecated but Howey is an existential threat. Go figure, huh?

As is, both are filling necessary roles in shaping the post-BPH era along with David Gaughran, Courtney Milan, KKR, DWS, A.C. Crispin (founder of Author Beware) and dozens of lesser known activists.

You need to be aware of all their efforts to fully appreciate what is really going on.
Because we are in fact looking at a publishing revolution in the US and the target isn't really the tradpub model but rather the very specific multinationals trying to maintain their fading hegemony by means fair and foul.

If Howey succeeds and the industry reforms, everybody wins with a minimum of damage to the tradpub author careers. If the BPHs hold fast to their "consensus" then Konrath's appeal to the "younger" generation becomes key to starving the hegemony out.

I personally expect the longer, bloodier scenario to play out.

Either way, Konrath is not to be ignored.
Not by authors and not by readers; we're living in a world he is helping to mold.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It starts out as a snarky fisking of the AG's position on the Google scan verdict:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2015/1...ors-guild.html

...but it gets serious and sensible:



More at the source.
(And the mockery is good, too.)

Yep....He's a troublemaker, but he's got his head screwed on right.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Konrath writes his blog, as stated, for newcomer authors.
(It's right in the title.)

Howey is trying to reform publishing as a whole to accomodate a fast and relatively painless transition to the digital era (ditto for KKR and DWS) but Konrath isn't. He's not trying to reform tradpub but to warn newcomers as a public service.

Revolutions need both firebrands and statesmen; without the former you don't get enough polarization to undercut the loyalists and without the latter you get a reign of terror and a hijacked revolution in the end. Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams and co. helped stoke the fires for the American Revolution yet it was John Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and co. who shaped the post-revolutionary nation.

The early dissenters in the revolutionary era weren't looking for Independence, they were merely looking for a fairer deal for the colonials. If the brits had listened to the reformers they could've nipped the movement in the bud. They didn't and instesd doubled down on their policies providing the environment where the activists could polarize the environment, foster escalation, and turn the mainstream against their oppresors.

In the process they wrote the handbook for successful revolution which, alas, has since been ignored by revolutionary leaders all over except Adam Selene. Who had Simon Jester to do his rabble rousing for him. First rule is you need your Jesters but eventually you have to turn to your Selenes to shape the future.

In the comments at the source and elsewhere, quite a few suggest Konrath start up a true Author's Rights group with him as leader, an idea to which he has so far said nothing. That is, however, something Howey might be amenable to which is why it is him and not Konrath that the traditionalists tend to attack.

Standard revolutionary era politics, really.
The establishment sees Konrath's confrontational style geared to outsiders as a useful way to keep their colonials in line ("He wants us all gone!") and Howey's generally calm calls for reform as a bigger threat because he appeals to the insider authors looking out.

To tradpub apologists Konrath is a raving jester easily deprecated but Howey is an existential threat. Go figure, huh?

As is, both are filling necessary roles in shaping the post-BPH era along with David Gaughran, Courtney Milan, KKR, DWS, A.C. Crispin (founder of Author Beware) and dozens of lesser known activists.

You need to be aware of all their efforts to fully appreciate what is really going on.
Because we are in fact looking at a publishing revolution in the US and the target isn't really the tradpub model but rather the very specific multinationals trying to maintain their fading hegemony by means fair and foul.

If Howey succeeds and the industry reforms, everybody wins with a minimum of damage to the tradpub author careers. If the BPHs hold fast to their "consensus" then Konrath's appeal to the "younger" generation becomes key to starving the hegemony out.

I personally expect the longer, bloodier scenario to play out.

Either way, Konrath is not to be ignored.
Not by authors and not by readers; we're living in a world he is helping to mold.

Exactly! Attack on all fronts!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yep....He's a troublemaker, but he's got his head screwed on right.

Uh-huh.
It is a stylistic choice.
And appropriate for his target audience.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Konrath writes his blog, as stated, for newcomer authors.
(It's right in the title.)[...]

That was his original agenda and he did a good job of it, but he has long since stepped beyond that role - so much so that it's no longer no easy to recognise that original agenda. He has a big audience that agrees with him, and he plays to it wonderfully. I don't think he quite fits the revolutionary role you are trying to paint for him, but then I don't think the revolution quite fits your historical example either. (I don't deny that a revolution is happening.)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Uh-huh.
It is a stylistic choice.
And appropriate for his target audience.

Not to get off topic, but I hear this a lot "Target Audience" and I'm skeptical is there is any such thing particularly wrt a blog and in this age of self-publication and social media.

I'm beginning to think it's more 'the followers you collect' than a pre-conceived 'target.'

[conan50]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Net neutrality is simply an attempt to have the government regulate the internet. Some people think that this is a peachy idea and good ol' Uncle Sugar will make sure that they get unlimited cheap internet access. Generally speaking, that's not what happens when the Government regulates.

Net Neutrality is keeping your ISP what it should be--a dumb pipe, just like other utilities. You pay for a connection to the Internet, and your ISP provides it. What Comcast and company want is to double, triple, quadruple dip. Not happy to gouge customers, it also wants to gouge everyone on the other end also, every service you use on the Internet. Why is this so bad? Because you end up paying Comcast and company over and over again. They want to charge Netflix more for access to you, and Netflix then passes that charge on to you, so you are paying Comcast twice, first to connect to the Internet, then add a Netflix tax via Comcast. That is wrong. The FCC, perhaps for the first time, is actually protecting consumers from monopolistic ISP's.

[kennyc]

Can we please stick to the topic and not let pwalker drag another thread into the cesspool.

[eschwartz]

Yes, please.

I'm sure we must have beaten other topics over the head in another thread, or could if we want to.
If we are going to deal with paranoid fantasies, at least let it be the paranoid fantasies related to this thread.

[Cinisajoy]

Can I remind everyone that Konrath was once trad and finally got his backlist back.
So just maybe he is talking in the language they understand.