Konrath challenges the Authors Guild

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by 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.

He also had an expensive legal fight to get them back.
There is a reason he is a firebrand.

[Phogg]

If you throw a rock over a fence, the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Phogg

If you throw a rock over a fence, the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.

And he won't forget it.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Phogg

If you throw a rock over a fence, the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.

Don't throw rocks. That hurt.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by gmw

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.

1- His old posts are still up.
2- The industry is still changing and new traps for newbies keep popping up.
3- he still does Newbie-specific columns:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2015/10/konrants.html

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

1- His old posts are still up.
2- The industry is still changing and new traps for newbies keep popping up.
3- he still does Newbie-specific columns:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2015/10/konrants.html

I love his newbie columns.

Heck I have been known to paraphrase him.

[pwalker8]

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.

Nope, pointing out cheap rhetorical tricks that have become popular on the internet only indicates that the other guy is engaging in cheap rhetorical tricks rather than meaningful debate. Of course, people who are use to that particular style don't particularly like having what they are doing pointed out. It makes the trick a lot less effective.

I don't think you quite understand what the phrase ad hominem means. I am attacking the authors use of rhetorical tricks to avoid engaging in an actual debate. A lot of people use rhetorical tricks when they don't want to defend their position.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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

Humor that depends on insults tends not to be effective, except with those who already agree with you. Mockery is a lot like ethnic jokes. You think it's funny as long as it matches your personal prejudices.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Nope, pointing out cheap rhetorical tricks that have become popular on the internet only indicates that the other guy is engaging in cheap rhetorical tricks rather than meaningful debate. Of course, people who are use to that particular style don't particularly like having what they are doing pointed out. It makes the trick a lot less effective.

And like I said, that is dependent on the "cheap rhetorical trick" actually being a cheap rhetorical trick, as opposed to humor which accompanies and/or doubles as meaningful debate (well, meaningful in the sense that it means something, I grant you the BWMs are' likely to listen).

I don't think you quite understand what the phrase ad hominem means. I am attacking the authors use of rhetorical tricks to avoid engaging in an actual debate. A lot of people use rhetorical tricks when they don't want to defend their position.

I was referring to your attacking the author by implying-but-not-quite-saying-straight-out that he is the type to resort to mockery on account of not having valid arguments.

If you want to argue with my "ad hominem" accusation, tell me I have no valid grounds for assuming what you mean don't tell me I don't know what the phrase means


Although I am pretty sure I understand your position pretty darn well, I've heard it enough to connect the dots...

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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...

No, I'm saying that depending on government bureaucrats to have your best interest at heart rarely works out well.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Humor that depends on insults tends not to be effective, except with those who already agree with you. Mockery is a lot like ethnic jokes. You think it's funny as long as it matches your personal prejudices.

I was waiting to see if you would notice//say anything about fjtorres' post #21
I guess not, though.


So I will spell it out for you:
You are missing the point.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, I'm saying that depending on government bureaucrats to have your best interest at heart rarely works out well.

Err, I'm not sure what the heck your point is supposed to be, unless you've started spouting truisms at random intervals.


Also, Net Neutrality is completely offtopic.

One person was confused by Konrath's mention of Net Neutrality, and I pointed out that it is indeed something the publishers don't like.

Where you got from there to "oh my gosh, let's start spouting offtopic truisms about trusting the government", I do not know, especially as no one has suggested the government has "our" best interest at heart.

So why do you feel the need to argue against... nothing and nobody?


But by all means, continue to try distracting the thread away from uncomfortable topics.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Err, I'm not sure what the heck your point is supposed to be, unless you've started spouting truisms at random intervals.


Also, Net Neutrality is completely offtopic.

One person was confused by Konrath's mention of Net Neutrality, and I pointed out that it is indeed something the publishers don't like.

Where you got from there to "oh my gosh, let's start spouting offtopic truisms about trusting the government", I do not know, especially as no one has suggested the government has "our" best interest at heart.

So why do you feel the need to argue against... nothing and nobody?


But by all means, continue to try distracting the thread away from uncomfortable topics.

Hey now,
The only thing uncomfortable about Konrath is his alter evil Jack Kilborn.

Seriously, Konrath does make some uncomfortable because he is usually right.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Hey now,
The only thing uncomfortable about Konrath is his alter evil Jack Kilborn.

Seriously, Konrath does make some uncomfortable because he is usually right.

I don't know anything about Konrath and don't read his books but I read the blog post linked in the first post of the thread last night and I agreed with everything he said. I read MM fiction and the authors who write that either self publish or use small independent publishers like Dreamspinner Press, Samhain or Loose ID (there are many more) and they embrace the internet, engage with readers, use Facebook, Twitter, Goodreads, anything they can. Increased visibility usually means more sales.

I just don't understand why a body supposed to represent authors could be so blind,so stuck in the past.

[crossi]

They claim to be a guild representing the interests of authors right there in their name "Authors Guild". They solicit memberships from authors in order to get membership dues from them. But in fact they represent the interests almost entirely of the big publishing houses, NOT in any way the authors. They are not blind, helping the interests of authors is not their main goal. At least not at the expense of the BPHs that they truely represent.