Paulo "The Alchemist" Coelho pirates own books to increase sales

[alexxxm]

Originally Posted by markbot

Pirating of intellectual property will be seen many years from now as one of the reasons for the decline of our society.

ah well, probably at least a little bit after some smaller problems as pollution, religious fundamentalism et al...

Originally Posted by markbot

For the record, I thought The Alchemist was a piece of crap.

I absolutely agree.

alessandro

[astra]

Originally Posted by alexxxm

ah well, probably at least a little bit after some religious fundamentalism

Agree, I would add Political Correctness to the list.

[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by erwin

Ehr, The Alchemist is a *1988* book, for crying out loud! Editors and other similar paras... ehm, I mean "indispensable third parties" should had gained enough already on it, I think...

That's a gross misrepresentation of what editors, publishing companies, etc. actually contribute to the work. Editors do a lot of work and it's ridiculous to insinuate they're "parasites" (that seemed to be where you were going with this). To assume that you'd have essentially the same product without editors or publishing companies or anyone else who contributes to the final product is just ignorant.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

That's a gross misrepresentation of what editors, publishing companies, etc. actually contribute to the work. Editors do a lot of work and it's ridiculous to insinuate they're "parasites" (that seemed to be where you were going with this). To assume that you'd have essentially the same product without editors or publishing companies or anyone else who contributes to the final product is just ignorant.

Perhaps I'm biased by association, since some of my friends are editors, but I agree wholeheartedly.

The relationship between writer and editor is crucial. Ask any published writer, and they will probably admit (if grudgingly) that their editor helped them make a better book.

The editor does not merely acquire a book for a publisher. She works with the writer to help define what kind of book it is and who it is aimed at, and provides criticism and suggests changes (the dreaded revision letter) that work toward that end.

Writers in general tend to be too close to their work, and need an impartial eye to say "This character isn't well enough developed" or "This chapter can be dropped with no impact. It does nothing to advance the story."

I recall a talk by one writer with a first novel on the stands, who remarked "The first thing John (his editor) said to me was 'You have to decide what story you are trying to tell.' John was right, and the writer knew it: his book lacked focus because he hadn't decided what story he was telling, and had at least two interfering with each other in the first draft. Once he narrowed his focus, things were much better.

You can make a case that many books being published now are inferior to what they could have been because the publisher is focused on the acquisition, and sees all of the work after the book is bought as a needless expense. It wasn't true before, and it's not true now.
______
Dennis

[erwin]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Perhaps I'm biased by association, since some of my friends are editors, but I agree wholeheartedly.

The relationship between writer and editor is crucial. Ask any published writer, and they will probably admit (if grudgingly) that their editor helped them make a better book.

The editor does not merely acquire a book for a publisher. (...)
Dennis

My apologies, this has been a lessical error from my part. I'm italian, and the italian term "editore" in english mean "publisher": I should had remembered better the lessons about false similarities in translations!!!

My tirade was intended not on the figure of the editor in the english meaning of the word, but on the publishers and the huge slice they eat off the pie of the cover price of a book (and of a music product even more!).

Again, I'm sorry for the qui pro quo...

[rhadin]

Yet one more word on the subject of editors (English meaning). That's what I do for a living and have been doing for 25 years, ever since I left Simon & Schuster to start my own company. What I want to interject into the conversation is this: There are multiple types of editors and each contributes to a finished book in a different way. The same person can fill multiple roles but there are specialists in each role.

Acquisition editors both acquire an author/book and give general direction to the author. AEs are responsible for getting a flow of work from the author and making sure that dates are met.

Developmental editors work with an author to literally develop the book by suggesting changes, moving chapters around, pointing out plot needs, and the like. DEs do the first round of nitty gritty work on a manuscript, getting it ready for production. Part of this job is fact checking, e.g., if an author writes that Davy Crockett was born in 1841 in Austin, Texas, the DE has to confirm that information or ask the author to confirm it.

Once a manuscript is ready for the book production process (moving from the editorial to the production departments), copyeditors (also known as line editors) become responsible for the manuscript. CEs are responsible for spelling and grammar, making sure that sentences are complete and accurate from a grammatical perspective. CEs are not fact checkers but are responsible for noting if something seems odd an querying the author about it.

An aquisitions editor can fill the roles of an AQ and a DE but the CE should be someone else. There are other people who are given the title of editor but who do not perform true editorial duties. It's like in an American bank -- everyone is a vice president.

One of the most famous American editors was Maxwell Perkins. He was so good at his job that he is still talked about in some editorial circles. Perkins was the editor of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books. In fact, Perkins had to convince his publisher that Fitzgerald was a worthwhile author. Perkins also edited Hemingway and several other "great" authors of that era. in those days, editors did it all and Perkins was the best.

In more recent times, probably the last truly great editor was Bennett Cerf who founded Random House. Cerf was often referred to as a young Max Perkins.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by erwin

My apologies, this has been a lessical error from my part. I'm italian, and the italian term "editore" in english mean "publisher": I should had remembered better the lessons about false similarities in translations!!!

That's OK. But I'm curious: what is the Italian term that translates to "Editor" in English?

My tirade was intended not on the figure of the editor in the english meaning of the word, but on the publishers and the huge slice they eat off the pie of the cover price of a book (and of a music product even more!).

Again, I'm sorry for the qui pro quo...

No apology required.

But I've seen a lot of wishful thinking on the topic which betrays a fundamental ignorance of the nature of publishing, and just what editors and publishers do to earn their money.

And the publisher's slice of the price may not be as large as you think. The cover price is what you are charged, though that may be discounted by the seller. But the publisher doesn't normally sell directly to you. They sell through distributors who provide books to retailers, and each of those takes a cut off the top. What the publisher actually gets (in the US, at least), is 50 to 60% of the cover price. And US publishing still operates mostly on a 100% returns policy, so any unsold books can be returned for full credit by the retailer. In the case of hardcovers, the actual books are returned. In the case of mass market paperbacks, the covers are stripped off and sent back. The actual books become landfill.

Boom publishing isn't as bad as the record industry, where all costs are charged against the artist, and it's possible to be an act with a platinum album on the charts and be broke and in debt.
______
Dennis

[hidari]

Originally Posted by TadW

Maybe they dully accept it to see how it goes... like an experiment.

Too bad Coelho couldn't find a decent book to Pirate. "The Alchemist"---very much overrated.

[pruss]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If he has an exclusive distribution contract with his publisher, then although it's not "piracy", he's probably at least breaching his contract.

It would depend on precise wording, of course, for instance what the contract said about electronic publication.

And if he's signed over the copyright, then it's a clear case of piracy.

I have a book with a major academic press. If I could distribute it for free electronically, I would do so in a heartbeat, in order to increase readership (which is what I care about; nobody is really making money on this item). But I can't, given the wording of my contract. Since I freely consented to the contract, I need to abide by it.

One thing I was wondering: Does he NOW have permission from his publisher for this? (The reason I ask is that if he does, then I'll happily download one of his books. But if not, well I can't really cooperate in possible breach of contract.)

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by pruss

I have a book with a major academic press. If I could distribute it for free electronically, I would do so in a heartbeat, in order to increase readership (which is what I care about; nobody is really making money on this item). But I can't, given the wording of my contract. Since I freely consented to the contract, I need to abide by it.

Again, if you sold 90 Million copies of your books as Mr. Coelho did, I think that publishers will kow-tow to your wishes, even send a messenger to your house with a pirate eye-patch if you wanted

To me all this noise about Mr. Coelho is irrelevant since someone selling that many copies is as close to royalty as it gets in the publishing world, so he can do whatever he wishes...

The sad part is that those authors who would benefit the most from this (the obscure ones) are usually shackled by the publishers and since they are the worker bees not the queen, they gotta kow-tow to the publisher instead

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by pruss

I have a book with a major academic press. If I could distribute it for free electronically, I would do so in a heartbeat, in order to increase readership (which is what I care about; nobody is really making money on this item). But I can't, given the wording of my contract. Since I freely consented to the contract, I need to abide by it.

You might broach the subject with your publisher.

Point to the example of Cory Doctorow, who releases books in hardcover through Tor Books, but also makes all of his work freely available in electronic form under a Creative Commons license. Cory is doing well enough from his writing that he quit his full time job with the EFF. I believe he thinks that the free downloads of his electronic copies spurred sales of the paper books.

Or point to the Baen Free Library, which makes a chunk of their back catalog available in an assortment of formats, as free downloads you are encouraged to copy and share. Writers participating see a gratifying increase in sales of their new novels, and a nice surge in sales of backlist titles.

Given the likely market for your book, I don't see an electronic edition cutting into sales of the paper volume. The folks who would buy it at all will buy the paper volume even if an electronic edition exists.
______
Dennis

[pruss]

Reading some of this, I've realized that things aren't as straightforward as they seem. Leaving aside the issue Coelho's contract, he is, apparently, violating the copyright on the translators' work. The work of a translator is copyrightable, and it isn't Coelho's work. Granted, it's more work to write than to translate, but a translator's work is both non-negligible and creative.

[ProDigit]

Paolo Coelho now offers 3 of his own works for direct download from his own site.

http://paulocoelhoblog.com/internet-books/