Catherynne Valente takes down her own award-winning ebook

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Now, now. None of that. I'm a firm believer in civil disagreement. We all have opinions and should be free to express them. We can agree on some things and disagree on others. It's all good.

Cookie?

With all the nasty things you've said to me I'd just as soon kiss a wookie.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

With all the nasty things you've said to me I'd just as soon kiss a wookie.

I never start these things so I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to guess who did.

[Faenad]

Originally Posted by pricecw

When you want to build a career on the willingness for people to give you money for temporary enjoyment, making those people angry is a very poor move.

We have a true tempest in a tea pot here .
If you go over to her blog, you will see that most people are happy for her and still support her. She agreed to send privately the missing ending to donators that missed it, even though doing this could probably put her in a bad position with her editor.

She stated repetitively that she tried to keep the ebook up, but was pressured to remove it.

I was asked to take it down repeatedly before now--and asked to take the entire book down, which I have fought not to do--and held off until today, at which point it was made pretty clear it needed to happen now

I am not Cory Doctorow. I can't even retain my erights on any novel the way he does.

I hope I have that kind of clout someday too--I would love to be able to put up everything for free the way he (Cory) does.

http://yuki-onna.livejournal.com/583585.html#comments

Please give her some slack. I never heard of her before, but I will certainly have a look at the book when it's released next year.

Now please take some croissant and some hot chocolate to dip them in

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by Faenad

We have a true tempest in a tea pot here. If you want over to her blog, you will see that most people are happy for her and still support her. She agreed to send privately the missing ending to donators that missed it, even though doing this could probably put her in a bad position with her editor.

She stated repetitively that she tried to keep the ebook up, but was pressured to remove it.







http://yuki-onna.livejournal.com/583585.html#comments

Please give her some slack. I never heard of her before, but I will certainly have a look at the book when it's released next year.

So what I get from this is that she had a choice in the matter. It was either capitulate to the ridiculous wishes of a publisher or stand up and do what she thought was right? How am I supposed to respect this, or the writer who makes a decision to bow down before an editor or a publisher? What, because some jerkoff editor is living in the past and forcing a writer to do something ridiculous we should all just let these actions pass?

She saw the green and turned her back on those who put her in the position to see the green in the first place. Another cowardly writer too afraid to stand up to the bully machine that is trad publishing. When did writers become such spineless little weaklings? No wonder the publishing industry is on its arse when all you've got is bullies running the show and the cowards who obey them.

/end of angry rant

Here, everyone have a nice chocolate Hob-Nob

[Lemurion]

Here's my take:

As far as I know, she didn't ever state that she was going to make the work available online in perpetuity. She took donations to write a novel that would be posted online, and did just that (as I remember there's more to the story, but it's not mine to tell). Then, when she signed a contract for the novel, she took it down.

Everyone who donated toward the book had a chance to read it in its entirety.

The only thing that bothers me is the very short notice, but that may not have been her decision.

She did what she said she would.

Expecting it to be up forever, and that the donation model would forever disallow a professional writer from selling her work and putting it in bookstores and thus in front of the majority of readers doesn't sound reasonable.

If she had finished the book and immediately pulled it down, I would have had an issue with it, but not this.

It almost sounds like people are complaining that their "right" to a free ebook is more important than her need to pay rent (mortgage or what have you).

I don't agree with that.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Here's my take:

As far as I know, she didn't ever state that she was going to make the work available online in perpetuity. She took donations to write a novel that would be posted online, and did just that (as I remember there's more to the story, but it's not mine to tell). Then, when she signed a contract for the novel, she took it down.

Everyone who donated toward the book had a chance to read it in its entirety.

The only thing that bothers me is the very short notice, but that may not have been her decision.

She did what she said she would.

Expecting it to be up forever, and that the donation model would forever disallow a professional writer from selling her work and putting it in bookstores and thus in front of the majority of readers doesn't sound reasonable.

If she had finished the book and immediately pulled it down, I would have had an issue with it, but not this.

It almost sounds like people are complaining that their "right" to a free ebook is more important than her need to pay rent (mortgage or what have you).

I don't agree with that.

You put something on-line, there is nothing but perpetuity as long as someone wants what you put there. This book will turn up all over the sharing networks soon enough. You don't piss off a community just for some money. That's not the right netiquette.

Chocolate Hob-Nobs for all!

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

So what I get from this is that she had a choice in the matter. It was either capitulate to the ridiculous wishes of a publisher or stand up and do what she thought was right? How am I supposed to respect this, or the writer who makes a decision to bow down before an editor or a publisher? What, because some jerkoff editor is living in the past and forcing a writer to do something ridiculous we should all just let these actions pass?

She saw the green and turned her back on those who put her in the position to see the green in the first place. Another cowardly writer too afraid to stand up to the bully machine that is trad publishing. When did writers become such spineless little weaklings? No wonder the publishing industry is on its arse when all you've got is bullies running the show and the cowards who obey them.

/end of angry rant

Here, everyone have a nice chocolate Hob-Nob

I disagree completely with this rant (although the Hob-Nob is a very nice and much appreciated gesture).

Keeping the book up would have been a nice gesture, but it's not a moral stand. She wrote it, she was hosting it on her site, she has every right to take it down whether she sold the book or not.

It's not as if posting this book online created her career either; she's been published before and won several awards. She probably would have sold this book anyway, and the truth is that she probably would not have had as many readers and donators if she wasn't already published and had an existing fanbase long before she tried this experiment. One can even argue that "traditional"* publishers made this possible.

The industry has its faults, but I think this rant was way overboard.

/two cents off.

Now let's go have a cup of Jamaican Blue Mountain.

[DawnFalcon]

She said "It will be free to read". Period. If she had been honest and said "It will be free to read for a limited time", then she would of probably not got enough donations to fund the writing.

You can't brush that aside.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

...

If she had finished the book and immediately pulled it down, I would have had an issue with it, but not this.

It almost sounds like people are complaining that their "right" to a free ebook is more important than her need to pay rent (mortgage or what have you).

I don't agree with that.

and not to go too far off topic, but this is exactly the kind of thing that gets brought up over and over in the "pirate" threads (alluded to above) with those supporting the pirates (alluded to above) claiming that the rights of the public and the public domain trump the rights of the creator of the work which is simply wrong. If we are to have new and interesting work, then it must be supported legally and financially.

[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.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

She said "It will be free to read". Period. If she had been honest and said "It will be free to read for a limited time", then she would of probably not got enough donations to fund the writing.

You can't brush that aside.

She said "It will be free to read." She did not say "It will be free to read forever."

You can't brush that aside either.

Actually, given the circumstances, I don't think adding that addendum would have cut down on the donations she received.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kennyc

and not to go too far off topic, but this is exactly the kind of thing that gets brought up over and over in the "pirate" threads (alluded to above) with those supporting the pirates (alluded to above) claiming that the rights of the public and the public domain trump the rights of the creator of the work which is simply wrong. If we are to have new and interesting work, then it must be supported legally and financially.

The other thing some seem not to be remembering is that it was never in the public domain.

Posting a book online is not the same as putting it in the public domain.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

She said "It will be free to read." She did not say "It will be free to read forever."

You can't brush that aside either.

Actually, given the circumstances, I don't think adding that addendum would have cut down on the donations she received.

Sorry, but that's sophistry. I know at least one very substantial donation she received was from a charity promoting YA reading who are absolutely FURIOUS. (I know because a friend works for them).

They certainly would not of donated if they'd known she'd pull this.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Whatever her reasons to pull this; cowardice, financial trouble, the moon was in the sixth quadrant and a psychic communicating with the dead told her it was the right move; what she's actually done is sell herself short with this move. For a quick cash payout from the publishers she's not only showed herself willing to take orders, but shown a very vocal portion of her audience that she doesn't care about them. Whichever way you look at this, she's onto a loser. The publishers she's in bed with don't have the first clue about anything (that doesn't bode well for her future writing). The audience that were spurned by her moves, will spread the word that she's not to be trusted. Plus, she'll have to have some kind of best-seller on her hands, because there's not a cat-in-hell's chance she'll be able to go the donation route again.

And to add insult to injury, all those people who might have gone the donation route will now be less likely to take that route. Word spreads fast around stuff like this, especially in genre circles. Her name is mud. It'll take a long time for that mud to wash off the whole idea of donation based writing.

Oh, and yes, I do blame the publishers over all. Without their bullying tactics there would be no victims. Come on, writers, grow a set. These old codgers who run the publishing industry are nothing without you.

*has eaten all the chocolate hob-nobs, but there are some custard creams left

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It almost sounds like people are complaining that their "right" to a free ebook is more important than her need to pay rent (mortgage or what have you).

I don't agree with that.

Here is what I am saying, I think this was un-ethical and bordered on a con to the people who donated. I am not one of those people, but wish to discuss it, hopefully so other authors see it and make a decision that will not anger their ultimate customer.

If you want to write a book, sell it, etc go for it. If you want to take donations for writing that book, and it is paid for buy those donators, then don't pull it later.

Anyway, like I said, an Authors actions make me decide if I will support them or not, her actions are making it very much less likely I will ever support her financially. This has nothing about wanting a free book, but everything about how she behaves to readers.

--Carl