Writing on the Ether

#DBW12, #toccon, #WDC12, Amazon, author, AWP, B&N, Barnes and Noble, book, confab, conference, critic, criticism, critique, DBW, Digital Book World, e-book, e-reader, ebook, ereader, Jane Friedman, publishing, Tools of Change, writer, writing, Porter Anderson, Writing on the EtherTable of Contents

  1. Overture: If music be the food of love
  2. eBooks: Are authors priced out of the market?
  3. Industry hysteria: The Big Seventh
  4. Conferences: Fighting for air at AWP
  5. Digital: By any other name?
  6. Libraries: What if they just forget ebooks?
  7. Language: Roz on the (right) rampage
  8. Self-publishing: Bransford bursts the bubble idea
  9. Women Authors: Counting VIDA
  10. Last gas: The quiet warrior

Overture: If music be the food of love

Before we begin to gnash our teeth over industry and insult this week, I’m pleased to offer you an embedded stream from Q2 Music. That’s the 24-hour NPR-affiliated  contemporary-classical service I’m always gassing about on Twitter.

Music may have nothing to do with your work, I realize. No problem. And this music, most of it created by the world’s top living composers, may put your muse right through the windshield.

But I hope you’ll consider hitting play while you’re here today — catch an echo of the Ether in spaces that lie light years beyond our words. Today’s programming includes a playlist curated for Q2 by David Byrne (2pET), opening a three-week American Mavericks festival.

And Q2 is always there, always ahead of there, actually: The fearless and relevant music you crave. Free tunes. Most of which you couldn’t hum to save your life.

And now, dear Ethernaut, shall we tear our hair together?

[blackbirdpie id=”177702330639200256″]


eBooks: Are authors priced out of the market?

The future is going to be filled with amateurs, and the truly talented and persistent will make a great living. But the days of journeyman writers who make a good living by the word — over.

That’s Godin to authors: You have no right to make money anymore. Thank you, Seth.

These dominoes of merciless wisdom fall in an interview at Digital Book World picked up by Mathew Ingram of GigaOM. Here’s Ingram:

The crucial principle at work (is) …your real competition isn’t the book or news outlet that is better than you; it’s the one that is good enough for a majority of your audience. …Maybe those vampire books by Amanda Hocking or the detective novels from million-selling author John Locke aren’t as good as yours, but for hundreds of thousands of weekend readers they are probably good enough.

Heart sinking yet? I should have offered you a drink, not music.

In the ongoing debate about how to price ebooks properly, it can seem that the author — whose personal investment and effort usually tops everyone else’s — is being overlooked, swatted aside.  And Ingram, as right as he is, does nothing to soothe the savage breast:

Godin’s point isn’t that you can’t make money; it’s that you have to think differently about how to accomplish that task.

[blackbirdpie id=”177419590945615872″]


Let’s get past Seth (where is the duct tape?) and hunker with Ed Nawotka at Publishing Perspectives, where he’s asking the comparatively handsome question, What’s More Fairly Priced at 99 Cents, Nonfiction or a Novel?

#DBW12, #toccon, #WDC12, Amazon, author, AWP, B&N, Barnes and Noble, book, confab, conference, critic, criticism, critique, DBW, Digital Book World, e-book, e-reader, ebook, ereader, Jane Friedman, publishing, Tools of Change, writer, writing, Porter Anderson, Writing on the Ether

Matt Gartland / WinningEdits.com

Nawotka begins by noting that in many nonfiction books, “a single chapter or two supports the whole enterprise.” That’s a nice way of saying there’s one idea and 250 pages. Nawotka goes on:

To me, selling a “digital short” nonfiction piece for 99 cents or even $2.99 is a much more valid commercial transaction than buying a fiction title for the same price, especially if it is vetted and edited by a proper publisher.

And your little manifesto, too, Seth. (Sorry, I don’t know what came over me. It’s all this violent modern music, that damned Q2.) Nawotka soars on:

To me, fiction — properly vetted and edited fiction — is something that should go for more. It’s often a far bigger investment in a writer’s time than a magazine-length nonfiction piece.

Splendid fellow, this Nawotka, isn’t he?

As for the 99-cent novels, well anyone in their right mind would tell you that it is purely marketing. My bet would be that very few novelists honestly want to see their books sold so cheaply (yes, it works for some, but it remains to be seen if you can build a long-term career on such foundations).

And how softly Nawotka has landed me at another of the better reads to be overlooked by most people lately.

In the recently released second part of Brian O’Leary and Hugh McGuire’s Pressbooks project, Book: A Futurist’s Manifesto, Kassia Krozser’s A Reader’s Bill of Rights establishes with committed vivacity the alliance of author and reader.

I am here to say it is the publishers who are doing their own product the most harm. Every time a publisher allows a print book or ebook to be released with poor editing, poor proofreading, and poor quality, the value of books in general diminishes in the mind of readers. We deserve better.

Krozser is pretty splendid, herself, you see. And I hope you’ll spend some time this weekend with her excellent essay, as well as others in O’Leary and McGuire’s growing book. It can be read free (not “for free,” damn it) online.

[blackbirdpie id=”175991259750608896″]

[blackbirdpie id=”176006884191518721″]

But there’s one point I’ve put to Krozser after reading her essay, and she’s been generous in coming back to me on it.

I’ve explained to her that I’ve had reservations about her discussion of ebook pricing when she concludes, “ebooks cost too damn much.” I’ve wondered if she had taken into account the fact that nothing about the author’s commitment changes for an ebook.

In this  digital revolution, the one element not digitized? — is the author. She or he must still go through the years of nightmarish work; the divorce when the neglected family falls apart; the custody battles; the forfeiture of all social life, up-to-date clothing, and mental health. Just take a good look at the next author you see.

Krozser answers:

First and foremost, I am a writer. I am an author. I am a publisher. I am that weird person who is torn between the “oh yeah” of angry authors and very real realities faced by anyone who goes into publishing as a business…So. I do not believe that, barring the rare JK Rowling, there is ever a way to fully compensate an author for the price of his/her creative labor.

Well, then, how do we reconcile the Reader’s Bill of Rights with what Margaret Atwood terms the “cheese sandwich” that every writer must have to keep churning out the stories? Basically, Krozser answers, we don’t.

There is absolutely no correlation among advances paid or sales or price or buzz or anything and talent. If there were, Paris Hilton would not have received a dime from a publisher. Publishing is, first and foremost, a business. Yes, it sometimes pretends to be a creative industry — especially when it comes to the disconnect between advances and actual sales — but the bottom line is very much the goal (well, that and executive bonuses).

[blackbirdpie id=”177112094116810753″]

[blackbirdpie id=”177112246953062400″]

I’ve asked Krozser what’s wrong with the $9.99 that Amazon made its original, general Kindle book price? Is an author’s life’s work truly not worth ten US bucks?

For traditionally published authors, there is an agreed-upon fair pricing structure, so authors are being paid for their work. However, publishers continue to correlate print and ebooks, without regard to the limitations of the latter. People seemed happy with a $9.99 ebook that didn’t come with the same rights and material as the $23.99 hardcover. They are less tolerant of a higher-priced ebook that is incomplete or poorly treated by the publisher.

And so what of the self-publishing authors who seem bent on bounding from 99 cents to $2.99 to free-giveaway promotions?Aren’t they driving down the whole market?

For self-published authors, they aren’t really driving the cost of the market down as much as they are driving their own worth down. It’s pretty clear that readers are happily paying higher prices for quality books, though there is a tolerance point. I cannot say if these authors feel their pricing is worth it to them — I guess some will offer up an emphatic yes. Me? I disagree.

So when I look at the author as the one step in the production chain not digitized — for whom nothing is streamlined other than a little word-processing software and thank God for Dropbox — maybe I’m not looking at someone forgotten, but at someone who easily can become self-defeating in a marketplace of opportunism.

I want Krozser to play us out here:

Being a writer is a creative endeavor. Being an author is a business. The authors who price themselves at .99 are, in my opinion, bad business people. They are banking on the general cheapness of humanity. They are hoping they’ll win because people will buy their books in droves.

This is bad business because the royalties are lower. This is bad business because we (the readers) equate cheap with lower quality. This is bad business because, well, it tells the world what you really think of your work product, your  talent, your worth. This leads to a marketplace flooded with crappy stories, and these authors are going to be increasingly lost in the mire.

[blackbirdpie id=”177114521922576385″]

Industry hysteria: The Big Seventh

Note: For a very useful analysis of the Thursday morning news that the Justice Department is “warning” Apple and five major publishers that it “plans” to sue them — in Reuter’s interpretation of the situation — I recommend legal correspondent Jeff Roberts’ good write at paidContent, The U.S. Threat To Sue Apple And Publishers: What It Means.

Read this:

Any other player in the ecosystem who is not at least mildly panicked probably doesn’t fully understand what’s going on.

Then read this:

Mr Bezos applied what he calls a “regret minimization framework”, imagining whether, as an 80-year-old looking back, he would regret the decision not to strike out on his own. He concluded that he would, and with encouragement from his wife he took the plunge as an entrepreneur. They moved from New York to Seattle and he founded (Amazon), in time-honoured fashion for American technology start-ups, in his garage.

The first lines are from the conclusion of Mike Shatzkin’s excellent two-essay work on Amazon. The other passage is from the Economist.

This is the sound of a point tipping: “What is new and unprecedented is that Amazon sales now constitute 30 percent or more of many large publishers’ business, between print and digital, and that number is rising.” That’s Mike Shatzkin in the first of his essays, Two questions that loom over the trade publishing business.

[blackbirdpie id=”177115369192960000″]

Outside publishing, as well, people are “sitting up,” as we say in the South, having a new look, skinny $AMZN margins and all. For example, there’s a piece by Jason Del Ray at Ad AgeAmazon Has Big Plans In Advertising, But Agency Trading Desks Stand in the Way about Seattle’s efforts in “audience extension.” Here’s Del Ray describing it:

“Audience extension” essentially means Amazon is tracking segments of its users as they surf the web, and allowing advertisers to reach those segments on and off Amazon. To do so, Amazon buys ad inventory on third-party sites that its users visit and then resells that inventory to an advertiser for a premium.

One of our problems in the backwater of Old Publishing is that we forget just what a trailblazer Jeff Bezos is on a far bigger plane than we usually see him. This guy, as the Economist reminds us, “pioneered features that have since become commonplace, such as allowing customers to leave reviews of books and other products (a move that shocked literary critics at the time), or using a customer’s past purchasing history to recommend other products, often with astonishing accuracy.”

Paper-mongers may bitch about this outlier — he’s been overshadowed by Jobs, Gates, and others — but Jeff Bezos has as much right to be a publisher as anyone else.

Amazon is hardly the first entity to be both seller and publisher. Mike Shatzkin takes care of that one in the second of his essays, The expected changes in the book business favor Amazon’s share growth :

Joint ownership of publishing and book retailing is definitely not new; it has been a part of the industry for my entire 50 years in it. My first book publishing job was on the sales floor of Brentano’s Bookstore on 5th Avenue in 1962… Across the street from Brentano’s was the Scribner Bookstore, owned by Charles Scribner’s Sons. They were the publishers of Hemingway and Fitzgerald, among others.

And in Two questions that loom, you find Shatzkin getting to the heart of an emotional reason that many in publishing hate Bezos: He wasn’t invited.

More and more, people who have been in publishing for years see Amazon as “in” the book business, but not “of” the book business. That attitude is exacerbated because the answer to the second question above (“who is left standing?”) for many is “perhaps not me.”

[blackbirdpie id=”177692753138946049″]


There’s an interesting piece from The Future Book to bring into play here. Emma Wright’s The Future of the Book Business: A Classicist’s View holds that “the traditional publishing industry…has reacted in much the same way as the Greeks in the 4th century, first with…denial that such a threat exists, followed by supreme confidence that these young upstarts…will never overtake them.” She goes on:

Instead of trying to preserve the printed book, which is not going to die out in our lifetime, publishers should be trying really hard to get more people reading, especially children. Who cares if we still have kids 20 years from now who love the smell of books? It would be better for the book business and everyone in general if more people were avid readers. More than publishers need to be challenging Amazon do they need to support libraries, aggressively.

Sounds like some kinship with Krozser there. And an honest reading of Shatzkin indicates we’re past any turnarounds. (Unrelated but interesting: Late news before the Ether pushed out that Wiley Looks to Sell Professional/Trade Assets That Drive $85 Million A Year, by Michael Cader at Publishers Lunch.)


(In five years) if the number following “Big” isn’t smaller than “6,” I’ll be one very surprised prognosticator.

And as for Bezos, if you can’t free up enough mental space to take in the man’s $42 million investment in the 10,000 Year Clock or his role in the space-travel startup Blue Origin, you’re probably not ready to handle what he’s doing with books, either.

The Economist:

Mr Bezos is bound to be the target of more criticism as his company’s hefty investments in new areas continue to put a dent in its bottom line…By being unusually patient, he hopes to create businesses that rivals will find harder to assail…it is the challenge of reaching for distant horizons that really makes Amazon’s boss tick.

[blackbirdpie id=”176698816853057536″]


Conferences: Fighting for air at AWP

Some of the nicest people I’ve never met (in person, only online) work with AWP. The folks who man the Twitter account AWPWriter, for example, are unfailingly cordial, helpful, patient, and welcoming. So it wasn’t a lot of fun last weekend in Chicago at #AWP12 to have to tweet them from the teeming floor of the confab to say that all wasn’t going well.

Nevertheless, they’ve gamely sent out their annual post-confab survey. If you’re among the 10,000+ people who were there, I hope you’ll take a little time to fill it out. The organizers need to hear both good and bad reactions.

For the uninitiated, this is the massive annual conference that’s based in university creative writing programs. Some 3,000 of the 10,000 attending this year, we were told during the keynote, were students.

I saw two strong sessions. One was a panel of poets who gathered, rather courageously, for a starkly candid discussion about the challenges of focusing on racial issues in their work. That session, “In White: White Poets and Race,” featured Tess Taylor, Michelle Boisseau, Martha Collins, Kate Daniels, and Jake Adam York. The other was “The Tech-Empowered Writer,” as previewed here last week. It featured Jane Friedman, Christina Katz, Seth Harwood, and Robert Lee Brewer — and was the only session I saw in which all the panelists had Twitter handles.

In looking back at these sessions, the first AWP drawback on my list comes to mind:

No residual online resources from AWP events. No decks of slides, no video, no copies of articles, nothing. Some speakers I saw had paper handouts, and never enough for all the attendees. AWP, unlike ToC with its fine archive of presentations, disappears like Brigadoon into the mists.

[blackbirdpie id=”177063601398480896″]

[blackbirdpie id=”177072197519679488″]


What does AWP want its conference to be and do? It’s a mixed bag: journal writers’ readings; writing-craft sessions; a smattering of business-of-writing events; tributes to beloved colleagues or institutions; parties thrown by various factions; and caucus rallies held by diverse groups within the community. These things occur all day and evening for three days, at about 75 minutes apiece, up to 23 events at once.

Simultaneously, there’s a mind-numbing book fair, which this year had some 550 presses, journals, and other entities. All were lost in cave-like underground exhibition halls. Bored people sitting at tables watched as glazed-eyed conference goers roamed by.

[blackbirdpie id=”175306202467680256″]


Would a theme help? Surely, if the steering committee could seize on some issue or topic around which each year’s AWP sessions and events were chosen, it might be possible to bring at least a track or pathway into the current jungle of events.

[blackbirdpie id=”176708679977021440″]


But the conference is somewhat at the mercy of its constituents. AWP’s constituents are its campus programs, of course. Everyone needs an event or two, everyone has vastly differing ideas of what makes a good session. How able is AWP’s governing outfit to drive a theme through this forest of organizations?

[blackbirdpie id=”175164574155280384″]


Little to no interactivity is supported at AWP. There are no power strips for people who need to plug in laptops and other devices. No tables at the backs of the rooms for live-bloggers. No Twitter handles offered for participants, despite a raging cacaphony of tweeting and other social mediation going on before, during, and after the conference.

[blackbirdpie id=”177411768165990402″]


The scholarly focus seems only more blinkered, year after year. I’m a creature of campuses, myself, with three degrees. I’ve taught at universities. I’m not standing on the outside of the academy throwing rocks. But folks. For a field that deals in publication, to have such a slight and disjointed approach to the the industry’s current crises is negligent at best.

A colleague argues that many at AWP “just want to write for themselves,” no interest in being published. I don’t buy it. How many people take writing degrees just so they can leave boxes of fond poems in the attic for their loved ones? #cmonson

Most people at any writing conference are at the very least curious about publication. I’d create an entire day of the conference for aspects of that topic’s myriad issues alone, and bring in some business experts, not campus-program instructors.

[blackbirdpie id=”177207258030161920″]


Bad keynote. It pains me to say this because I’m a big fan of Margaret Atwood and was so pleased with the talk she gave at the 2010 ToC, thanks to Kat Meyer and Joe Wikert’s ingenuity in coaxing her to the stage. That’s the address she should have been able to give at the Auditorium Theatre in Chicago last weekend for AWP.

Instead, she told us, the conference asked her to speak on “the craft of writing.” She  expressly told the audience, she has nothing to say on the topic, having never studied it, herself. And as I said several times, too, if she does have a craft secret, Atwood’s way too smart to blab it to several thousand would-be writers at a conference.

Her talk, while warmed by her personable presence, was quickly forgettable. It’s pretty hard to put Atwood into a position that renders her forgettable. AWP managed to do it.

[blackbirdpie id=”176681877703368704″]


AWP is too danged big. Finally, here is the elephant too large to fit in the room. With 10,000 people, AWP was miserable. I spoke with the astonishingly sturdy concierge staffers who worked, wide-eyed, to keep things under control at the Hilton Chicago. They told me that they (the hotel personnel) had had no idea that the conference would mean such a sea of humanity ebbing and flowing up and down badly overcrowded elevators, jammed shoulder-to-tote-bag in hallways, swarming lobby staircases, cleaning out restaurant inventories. The facility was overwhelmed and so were many of the attendees.

[blackbirdpie id=”176435551413604353″]


Now, a few AWP writes from other folks here, representing the gamut from wry skeptic to awestruck apostle, from pro to student.

First, David Duhr at Publishing Perspectives:

From Duhr’s first write:

I am one among 9,500 attendees at this year’s AWP conference. This is well over one million pounds of writers. In fact, judging by what I know about the lifestyles of most in our profession, it might be over two million pounds of writers. Most of which right now is focused on being seen, being heard, and trying to find a bathroom…I’ve already spent $80 today. It’s 40 degrees out…this conference, by the numbers, equals four days of three open barstools between two different Hiltons, and the whole thing is one giant clusterf*ck.

Heard at AWP by Dave Bonta

The Electrifying Community at AWP 2012 in Chicago by Hanna Kjeldjerg

AWP 2012 Wrap-Up by Kristen Grace

[blackbirdpie id=”176365067934253056″]


Digital: By any other name?

Anne Kostick and I are great friends and colleagues. She’s an accomplished specialist in UX (user experience), who led a fine workshop at ToC on the issue, and has contributed many excellent articles to DBW’s site. We’ve even been spotted together at lunch and Museum of Modern Art seminars, and we share a love for what Q2 Music is doing for contemporary classical.

[blackbirdpie id=”177064803804774400″]


Alas, I fear that my dear Kostick has come a cropper with this latest post, Digital Reading: Renaming the (Digital) Book.

It’s been such a draining season, hasn’t it?

Somehow, the poor thing has taken it into her head that we need a new word for these e-things we’ve been calling books. She lays out the need this way:

We have e-books, of course; but we also have enhanced e-books, book apps, Google books, iBooks, Kindle books, and online books. This is in addition to audio books and various editions of books printed on sheets of paper and bound. Some of these literary products are illustrated, animated, interactive, collaborative, updatable and/or editable. And in every case, we call them books. I call it confusing.

I haven’t experienced this confusion, myself. But I do notice that suggestions for new names for the book trend awfully quickly to the cute. Readers of my work at Writer Unboxed will recall my dislike for “corporate-cute” names. Here in Kostick’s column are proposals that we might call an ebook a “readee.” Or a “wordup.” “Or a “pagey.” Or a “knowie.” Why not just call the thing a “kitty-cat shower curtain” and be done with it?

[blackbirdpie id=”177068828805697536″]


In a volley of tweets this week, Kostick mentioned to me a term offered by Ernio Hernandez, “mindcake.” This is offered as a substitute for the term “ebook,” you understand. A “mindcake.”

Let’s just give this one the user-experience test, shall we?

  • On an author’s website: “Sample Chapter 1 here free — I’d like to give you a piece of my mindcake.”
  • In the prosecutor’s office: “We’re going to throw the mindcake at that crook.”
  • At the Christian mindcakestore: “Do you have a copy of “The Mindcake of Common Prayer?”
  • After school: “I’m checking out some enhanced mindcakes from the library.”
  • At the dinner table: “Anybody for dessert?” “No, thanks, I have an iMindcake to read for homework.”
  • On the plane: “Good music?” “No, I’m listening to an audio-mindcake.”
  • At the conference: “Revising that manuscript again?” “It’s my crazy editor, can’t make up her mindcake.”

Icing on the mindcake: coming from the already dire book-Nook-Vook vortex, I believe it’s Jeremy Greenfield at DBW who has ruled out the logical extrapolation to a digital book, “dook.”

Sure to be cutesied up as “dookie.”

Amazing how good the term “ebook” sounds now, isn’t it?

[blackbirdpie id=”177048078078054400″]


Libraries: What if they just forget ebooks?

Two years after “standing up” to Amazon by handing Apple instant market share in the ebook space, and jumping through hoops to supply every other harebrained ebook startup with shoddily formatted content, with nary a thought given to device interoperability nor optimal user experiences, and in the wake of the #2 domestic book retailer finally going bankrupt, libraries have seemingly become the one kid on the playground publishers think they can bully into submission.

With the #cmonson zeal we’ve come to expect of him, Guy LeCharles Gonzalez this week is helping librarians face what has seemed unthinkable: eBooks and Libraries: Is it Worth the Effort?

Here’s the question, finally called, italics mine:

Since publishers are so concerned with the “perpetuity of lending and simultaneity of availability” of their ebooks, I have to wonder if libraries shouldn’t just help them out and hit the STOP button themselves? Stop buying ebooks across the board, at any price, under any terms. Let publishers fight it out with Amazon, and when the dust finally settles (it will) and a viable business model appears (maybe), begin negotiating anew, on solid ground, with whomever’s left standing.

Gonzalez goes on to ask what’s the fear in such a potentially sensible move in time of budget cuts? “Is the belief that without ebooks, libraries will seem irrelevant and antiquated,” he asks? “My little local library…(has) a decent children’s library and a variety of useful services that I’d argue are far more valuable to our community.”

This is a very potent argument for many communities’ libraries. And as Gonzalez mentions Andy Woodworth’s timely Alternative Uses for the Pesky eBook Budget, Bobbi Newman of Librarian by Day picks right up on this with her own Should Libraries Get Out of the eBook Business?  She writes:

I can’t help but wonder if Guy LeCharles Gonzalez is right…Do not mistake me, I do not think we should stop looking for a solution or stop advocating on behalf of our patrons, but I do think perhaps we should stop throwing good money at a bad solution.

[blackbirdpie id=”177375638053859328″]

Libraries: Could the ebook price hikes be good?

With its move, Random House has made clear what it wants out of a new relationship with libraries- more cash per copy. In return, libraries need to demonstrate what they expect for their money. What should libraries require from their premium ebooks in exchange for premium prices? Here’s my list.

Eric Hellman of the new Unglue.it platform lays out a classic contrarian’s argument for why Random House’s 300-percent increase in ebook prices could have moved the ball into librarians’ court. In Random House’s eBook Price Hikes are GOOD for Libraries. IF… he calls on libraries to leverage their higher prices for more demands on publishers.

The demands he recommends include:

  • portability (unlock ebooks from one or another vendor’s distribution platform);
  • transferability (allow ebooks to be traded among libraries);
  • privacy (no giving up of user info);
  • accessibility (text-to-speech and other technologies);
  • and integrability (a 50-cents word meaning, here, allowing libraries to integrate such services as ebook “annotation, discussion, advanced discovery tools and social interaction”).

And by the way, Joe Wikert at O’Reilly, has produced an informative interview with Hellman about his new platform and program: Unglue.it seeks to set ebooks free.

[blackbirdpie id=”177072997037912066″]


Along with Gonzalez’ and Hellman’s good writes this week, this segment of Ether is enriched by a couple more quickly covered bits:

Libraries: Luddites in paradise

“We want to collect one copy of every book,” said Brewster Kahle, who has spent $3 million to buy and operate this repository situated just north of San Francisco. “You can never tell what is going to paint the portrait of a culture.”

It’s David Streitfeld at the Times with In a Flood Tide of Digital Data, an Ark Full of Books, a fascinating feature on Kahle, of the Internet Archive, and his Noah-ic mission to preserve a physical archive.

[blackbirdpie id=”177714144726892544″]


And lastly:

Libraries: Not Scooby-Doo but Skoobe.de

Skoobe is designed as a „virtual library“. This means, that users can browse the whole assortment and borrow all ebooks as long and as often as they want. Only the number of ebooks that can be borrowed at the same time as well as the number of new ebooks per month are limited. Five ebooks at the same time are available on the user’s bookshelf, when „returning“ one, another title can be borrowed.

The Skoobe.de homepage

Our good colleague Sebastian Posth in Berlin gets into Sam Missingham’s blog at The Future Book with Germany’s first ebook subscription service Skoobe.de has launched, a great layout of this kickass new service. Get this:

Above all specifications and features for users – the app is super-professionally designed and runs very smoothly -, there is another remarkable thing to mention about the company: Skoobe is a joint venture of the two German major trade publishing companies Verlagsgruppe Random House and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck plus arvato – arvato Publishers Services. This means, that Skoobe will be backed up with loads of trade content right from the start! And, it’s open to other publishers as well, due to which Skoobe is able to offer ebooks also from one of the most innovative trade publishers in the German ebook market, Bastei Lübbe. Which will probably attract even more publishers!

So maybe we should consider a springtime move to Dusseldorf, ja?. Next week’s Ether will be in Deutsch, you won’t mind, will you? Auf Wiedersehen.

[blackbirdpie id=”177427127522689025″]


Language: Roz on the (right) rampage

When did we start forgiving sloppiness and sneering at correctness? If you have a genuine love of the writing craft, isn’t it a point of pride to get these things right?

Author and craft coach Roz Morris is tired of a few hostile phrases: “Here are some terms we must stop using. ‘Grammar Nazi.’ ‘Punctuation police.’ ‘Spelling snob.’”

Fed up with the brazen backlash of amateurs — who are inevitably the ones most offended by having a mistake pointed out to them — Morris wrote Love writing? Love the tools of the language. In it, she asks readers to share their “pet hates.” At this writing, she has 85 comments listed on the post. She concludes:

We are writers. Our prose is our instrument. These are not stuffy, irrelevant rules. They are essential technical skills for communication. When we get them wrong, we trip up the reader. Or we mislead, or undermine ourselves.

[blackbirdpie id=”177397929999474689″]


Language: At least try a roundabout

I’d like to add a ban on pop clichés to Morris’ comments on writing quality. We owe better to our readers and to each other, our colleagues. I’d suggest we start by declaring it illegal, irrational, and unattractive  to use the phrase “at the intersection of” except in giving traffic directions.

At AWP, we heard it continually. “At the intersection of literature and current events,” “at the intersection of politics and poetry,” “at the intersection of rhetoric and classicism,” “at the intersection of technology and letters,” ad nauseum.

Anybody parroting that phrase risks being run down at the intersection of laziness and mall-speak. If you’re a writer – and, as we know, all but four U.S. citizens now claim to be writers because “it’s the Internet” – work up a little originality.

[blackbirdpie id=”177460327724744704″]


Self-publishing: Bransford bursts the bubble idea

I say no. We’re not in a bubble. This is not a temporary blip. There are sooo many people who are writing books out there. There are even more who want to write a book and believe they have a book in them. There are thousands upon thousands of unpublished manuscripts out there and even more in progress.

Nathan Bransford, the crossover artist who was a high-profile agent and now is an author of MG books and a fixture at CNET, raises the question so he can answer it: Is There a Self-Publishing Bubble?

Blogging was a blip. Books are far more central to our culture and are far, far more glamorized than blogs. Lots of people want to grow up and be a famous author. Fewer want to be a famous blogger… There is a massive supply of books in the pipeline.

Bransford has an eye for art and enjoys dusting off canvases on his posts, here in the twilight of blogging. His apt choice for this piece is one of the charming “Soap Bubbles” paintings (Les Builles de savon) of the French master Jean-Siméon Chardin (1699-1779). There are three versions of the work, held by the National Gallery, the Met, and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, respectively.

Chardin’s “Soap Bubbles,” the version on display at Los Angeles County Museum of Art

LACMA’s image viewer gives you the chance to examine in close detail that museum’s version of the work. Listed as being currently on view, it’s the gift of the Ahmanson Foundation and measuring 23 5/8 inches by 28 ¾ inches. Relative to Bransford’s post, LACMA’s extended discussion notes that this evocation of blowing bubbles, “is far from being a scene of carefree, youthful abandon.” There are bubbles, and there are bubbles.

This has been a welcome interlude. On we go.

[blackbirdpie id=”177194062741372928″]


Women Authors: Counting VIDA

VIDA, an American organization that supports women in literary arts, recently released ‘The Count’ for 2011 providing a sobering (and somewhat depressing) look at the current state of rates of publication between women and men in some of the most prestigious literary review outlets (including the New York Times Book review, Times Literary Supplement and the New Yorker).

Author Clare Langley-Hawthorne is one of the regular bloggers at Kill Zone — which, as a point of interest, is written by six women and five men, by my count.

In Is There a Literary Glass Ceiling? Langley-Hawthorne laments not only the frustrating disparities of staffing and coverage at various venues, but also the apparent imbalance between men and women being published.

She turns to Alison Flood and Michael Bonnet’s report in The Guardian, Gender bias in books journalism remains acute, research shows. It’s there that we find some indication that the percentage of material published by women lags that published by men.

The Guardian contacted a number of the UK’s largest publishing houses and found that 2011 non-fiction releases for Penguin, Atlantic Books, Random House and Simon & Schuster all painted a similar picture, with 74%, 73%, 69% and 64% per cent of all titles male authored respectively.

While those numbers are no happier than VIDA’s corresponding figures on drastically less media coverage and presence for women, The Guardian’s research at least includes an inquiry into how much female-authored work was available for media outlets to cover.

In both articles — Langley-Hawthorne’s and The Guardian’s — the reader comments are  telling.

Some respondents express surprise at statistics suggesting that many more books by men than by women may be getting into publication. Others reject that information as immaterial, even though, of course, such a severe (and regrettable) imbalance of women’s work to men’s could make it impossible to have a balanced amount of coverage. (The understanding being that if the books simply aren’t there in equal numbers to be covered, then coverage cannot be equal.)

Suffice it to say, Langley-Hawthorne is putting these gender-disparity issues on the table with a refreshing frankness.

My aim is to promote discussion not to whine, complain or moan (which sadly, seems to be the reaction to many women commentators when they raise the issue of gender in publishing).

[blackbirdpie id=”177085018248712192″]


Last gas: The quiet warrior

If I wrote a book on the subject of self-sabotage, shouldn’t I be open, even eager, to speak about it? What’s the difference? Speaking and writing are the same thing, aren’t they? No, they’re not.

Steven Pressfield, an author whose work many of us admire — both in his War of Art material on writing, and in his art-of-war historical novels — takes an admirably firm stance in this unusually personal new blog post, Why I Don’t Speak.

Especially timely during the annual round of publishing conferences, when it seems everybody is talking everywhere, Pressfield makes a stand for privacy of the author-reader connection.

There’s a type of communion that happens between a writer and a reader within the pages of a book that cannot be replicated in a public setting—at least not a large-scale one. In fact, the large-scale setting by its very nature corrupts and deforms the meaning of the material.

I wrote The War of Art in book form for two reasons:

1. So I wouldn’t have to talk about it, and

2. Because book format was, in my view, the only appropriate way to deliver this material to the individual who might profit by being exposed to it.

At a time when “social reading” seems to be an idea readily embraced by many writers, it’s intriguing to hear Pressfield stake such an adamant counter position. Here is the author who has helped so many of those same writers — and he’s speaking up for not speaking up.

I’m a writer. I’m not a speaker. Speaking is not my calling. It’s not my thing. I can do it, yeah, and sometimes even pull it off fairly well. But my heart is never in it. I’m not having fun. And when the event ends, even if there’s applause or heartfelt appreciation, I still can’t wait to get out of there. I’m a writer. Speaking, for me, is a form of Resistance.

So, Pressfield writes, he turns down daily invitations to speak.

I can’t be the one to do the talking. Not on this subject. It’s too close to the bone, too intimate, too personal and too important. It ain’t me. I can’t do it.

[blackbirdpie id=”177069590638108673″]


This week’s Ether-eal main image is from iStockphoto/mgkaya

Upcoming Online Classes

The following two tabs change content below.
Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) is a journalist and consultant in publishing. He's The Bookseller's (London) Associate Editor in charge of The FutureBook. He's a featured writer with Thought Catalog (New York), which carries his reports, commentary, and frequent Music for Writers interviews with composers and musicians. And he's a regular contributor of "Provocations in Publishing" with Writer Unboxed. Through his consultancy, Porter Anderson Media, Porter covers, programs, and speaks at publishing conferences and other events in Europe and the US, and works with various players in publishing, such as Library Journal's SELF-e, Frankfurt Book Fair's Business Club, and authors. You can follow his editorial output at Porter Anderson Media, and via this RSS link.
Posted in Writing on the Ether.


  1. Glad to see you’ve recovered from all AWP12 related festivities, Porter. Without revealing any of the dinner conversation at Harry Caray’s, I’d like to weigh in on the ebook/library dilemma.
    I started a long train ride by downloading NOOK for PC on my new netbook, and immediately logged on to the Chicago Public Library website. CPL is great: I can reserve books, have them moved to a certain library branch, renew them online (if there’s no waiting list), return them to any branch. Books, mind you, I said books.
    I wanted to test-drive their ebook lending, but I’m sure my experience will come as no surprise to you or Guy or anyone else.
    CPL tells you how many copies are available (in most cases, one) and if there’s a waiting list. Now I’m no mathematician, but I know that if there are 43 people on the waiting list for an ebook, one which can be “checked out” for 3 weeks, I’ll be older and greyer by the time #44 gets to read it.
    I say yes, get libraries out of ebooks until the dust settles. Tripling the price for libraries ensures that they’ll buy 1/3 of the titles, because guess what? They don’t have more money to spend. Library budgets are slashed to the bone. I think we call that shooting yourself in the foot.

    • Well, Viki ( @twitter-240542789:disqus ) , it sounds to me as if Guy ( @glecharles:twitter ) should have a job for you any day of the week. You’re exactly right on every point. And one of the hardest-to-reconcile elements of e-lending is that the publishers are requiring each license to be wait-listed like a physical book.

      By comparison, look at the amazing Skoobe.de e-lending library just launched in Germany. Did you catch that in the Ether? (End of the Libraries section.)

      If you have a couple of minutes, go to the site at http://www.skoobe.de and watch the video on the homepage. It’s short but you can follow exactly what it’s telling you … quite clever, the many books, the kinds of books, the sheer energy and creativity going on for this superb program.  We’d have readers on ever corner if the US had Skoobe.de.

      And as our good friend Sebastian @sposth:twitter in Berlin tells us, all the books are always available, for all customers. And the publishers are in it together, cooperating. I’m feeling more German by the moment. (And just an aside, Ms. FriendGrief, it’s FreundTrauer in Deutsch. Get your German translation ready because never mind the Americans, the Germans are reading, reading, reading. :)  This may be our first market for our books and forget the US. :)


  2. Porter, amazing round up — now, I have to get back to work and confront this beast of the book business. First: When I read the WSJ piece on Apple getting sued, I yell “f*ck” and my wife looked very distressed at how annoyed I sounded. Doesn’t the DOJ have something better to do — and my god, we have lost all respect for writers. On the other hand, they often don’t inspire respect, as such. I went to AWP once, in 2005 when it was in Austin and I lived there, and the whole thing reeked of nothing but pure desperation — people looking for attention, validation, jobs, a journal to publish their story — that I have never felt compelled to go back. It reminded me of when I got my MFA nearly two decades ago — petty jealousies and envies writ large. Maybe it’s changed? But from all the reports back — including the three we did on Publishing Perspectives — it sounds very much the same. 

    • Hey, Ed (@twitter-124241210:disqus ), thanks so much for checking out the Ether and leaving a note, really appreciate it. Yeah, this beast of the book business, huh?  I was caught off guard when I first heard about the DOJ suit, too, although the language Reuters is using this afternoon implies — I’m saying that guardedly — that this could be more of a pressure effort than a done deal. Reuters is calling it a “warning” of “plans” to sue. Should be interesting to see where it goes.

      And yeah, like so many things in this fascinating, challenged industry right now, I find it easy to be of two minds (or three or four) about the stance of writers, as well. I’m with you on your point that it’s hard sometimes to see any party in the situation looking real good. I do think that recent developments, particularly the extreme discounting that lies largely in the self-publishing camp, have endangered things, just as lousy quality in way too much content has done. Kassia Krozser ( @Booksquare:twitter ) has so many smart things to say about authors whose pricing is “driving their own worth down.” It might be a while before some of these difficult trends shake out.

      I’m afraid that most of what you recall from AWP is still happening. A great deal of the action there is a form of auditions, really. Things can take on a kind of manic feel really fast, I find. And as much as you sympathize with folks who are jockeying for new positions and openings, it’s incredibly wearing and not a good basis for real exchanges of expertise and perspective. The sessions start to look almost like a show to keep things moving while those backstage intrigues you recall are playing out. I took my MFA in a conservatory program, which turned out to be a lucky break — less room for a firing range than in normal settings, lol.

      And yes, @DavidDuhr:twitter  did a deft job of catching a lot of the 2012 scene and sass in his three pieces for you at @PubPerspectives:twitter  — some nice work that rings too true. :)

      Thanks again, Ed. Not a bad thing at all that this week is nearing an end. :)

  3. People read the inciting article title and missed what Seth actually said, which was that simply writing wasn’t a guarantee of a paycheck. “The future is going to be filled with amateurs, and the truly talented and persistent will make a great living.” How is that different from the way publishing worked before? It’s always been true that a very small percentage of writers actually made a living from their craft. I read Godin’s words as an admonishment toward those who think they should be making money five minutes after they shove their words out onto the internet. It doesn’t work like that; it has never worked like that. You have to stay around and create something of real value that a significant number of people are willing to pay for. He didn’t say writers shouldn’t make money; he said everyone who self-identifies as a writer won’t make money.

    • Hi, Eres, and thank you for reading and commenting here at the Ether!

      I think you’re right, for the most part, in your interpretation of what Seth Godin was saying.  This, of course, is why I quoted Mathew Ingram saying, “Godin’s point isn’t that you can’t make money; it’s that you have to think differently about how to accomplish that task.”

      On the other hand, Godin is saying something darker than I believe you’ve perhaps caught. “The days of the journeyman writers who make a good living by the word — over.” In other words, Godin sees us entering an era of starker extremes, when the amateurs and “the truly talented and persistent” will fail and succeed respectively, with less middle ground of solid, sturdy work in the middle.

      What’s more, the timing is important. The advent of the Internet has had the effect of prompting a great many people to jump into the fray, digital publishing making them feel they’re writers. Most, of course, don’t realize or want to undertake the actual work, training, and struggle at times of becoming bona fide professional authors. But the effect is a massively larger field of these amateurs than we’ve ever known, history has not seen this before. (History has not seen the Internet, either.)

      So my interpretation of what Godin is saying turns on a choked market, already full of inept, low-quality content, a nightmare for many readers to wade through and a daunting barrier for many professional writers who must find new ways and means to distinguish themselves at the ver moment that some of the former aids in this regard (publishers’ publicity departments and strong advances) are vanishing.

      It is not true, unfortunately, that if you create very fine content, it will sell. Even the best work now requires careful introduction to wisely targeted markets and, normally, a substantially increased amount of salesmanship and platforming on the part of the author — who may feel that she or he would rather just write.

      The best thing we can all take from this instance of Godin’s commentary and public reaction, I think, is not a concentration on who said what and how it was heard, but on the fundamental, shared understanding we all need to achieve of the rapidly shifting nature, shape, and pitch of an industry being flipped upside down.

      Hang in there and thanks again!

      • It is not unique to writers that the day of the journeyman is over. For example, steady, middle-income, white-collar jobs with pensions are disappearing. Some of the incumbents of those kinds of jobs are getting contracts that pay twice or thrice the wage. Others are unemployed or earning $15 per hour.

        • Extremely good point, @bsaunders:twitter and you do well to remind us of this. All too easy to get so focused on our own industry that we forget these peculiar forces of digitization and economic pressure are hitting many fields far beyond us. Thanks for your note, much appreciated!

      • Porter, you are like aerobics for my brain. Please pardon my tardy response; I forgot I wrote this comment and was delighted to find your thoughtful reply.

        “‘The days of the journeyman writers who make a good living by the word — over.’ In other words, Godin sees us entering an era of starker extremes, when the amateurs and “the truly talented and persistent” will fail and succeed respectively, with less middle ground of solid, sturdy work in the middle.”

        I’m going to have to disagree with you (just a bit). Are the extremes really starker? If we compare this situation to what has happened with journalism, is the production and consumption of news worse now that bloggers have reduced the number of paid reporters? I would argue it’s better. Are the publishing extremes starker if there are more people rising up to write “for free” (willing to push work out and build a platform early on and get paid later) and we lose some of our “journeyman” writers? Perhaps not.

        I’ll use myself as an example. I worked in publishing for many years. I wasn’t interested in writing because I didn’t like the system or the compensation. I greatly prefer to write for a smaller (even negligible) sum under the current system (self-publishing on Amazon) than go for the carnival prize of an advance under the traditional system. Should the mid-list writers who are watching their advances shrink be upset that other writers are perfectly happy (nay, thrilled!) to offer up material for less money up front?

        One man’s “choked market, already full of inept, low-quality content, a nightmare for many readers to wade through and a daunting barrier for many professional writers” is another man’s suddenly open and free market with shifting rules and systems — something that makes that latter fellow rub his hands together gleefully and decide to enter the fray.

        “It is not true, unfortunately, that if you create very fine content, it will sell.” I’ll draw a delicate line from this sentence back to the phrase “less middle ground of solid, sturdy work in the middle”. One might throw his hands in the air and say that with the influx of content of dubious nature, we are poisoning the well and we will never recover. Of course, those who are stampeding in the gates thrill to the chance of being allowed to compete for readers/buyers. One’s outlook is colored by which side of the gates one is standing on.

        When we’re talking about *journeyman* work — the solid, reliable, middle-ground stuff — it is possible that we’ll get just as much of it from the unwashed masses who self-publish as we did from the stolid “bona fide professional authors.” And remember, when you say most of the “great many people [who] jump into the fray, digital publishing making them feel they’re writers” … “don’t realize or want to undertake the actual work, training, and struggle,” you are needling them coming and going. They’re willing to do the work without professional recognition or support, without funding, and on spec. It seems to me they’re more willing to pay heavy dues than most — so perhaps they’re deserving of the opportunity to take their run at this flipped-upside-down industry.

  4. Thanks for the shout-out about our panel, Porter and Jane. And thanks for tweeting it against all odds, Porter. I am digging the links at the top of the ether. They mean I can hop right in and I don’t have to wait for the weekend to roll through. Awesome!

    • Thanks, Christina (@thewritermama:twitter  ), and thanks again for the great panel at AWP, a beacon of techno-talk in a pretty retro setting, lol. 

      Glad you like the table of contents on the Ether (it’s a “toc,” actually, which is one of the meanings of ToC, too, a part of the reason the O’Reilly folks chose that name for that conference, isn’t that cool?).  We had the toc “commented out” for months in the Ether, and I simply used it internally to move around while building the beastie and then to tweet it. Then I realized it might help people realize they don’t have to read the whole thing (which could be life-threatening, I fear, lol) but can just pick and choose the topics they’re interested and jump to them.

      FYI, if you ever want to tweet out something, each of the entries in the toc creates a slightly different URL. So once you’ve clicked on, say, the fourth section, the URL will have a “#4” in it. That complete URL, with the #4 in place, then, can be sent or tweeted to somebody and they’ll land right at the start of section 4 where your pertinent stuff is, not at the top of the whole Ether almighty.

      As you say, no waiting for the weekend to roll through. :)
      Thanks again!

  5. Pingback: Why Cheap Doesn’t Work in Copywriting or Marketing | Due Creative

  6. Pingback: Writing on the Ether | Jane Friedman | Chazz Writes

  7. With fronds like these who needs anemones? (as the gardener said to the florist…) Thanks, Porter, for contributing to the conversation by giving your opinion on the proper name for the book in its digital form. I see, from skimming to the bottom of your flame, that you prefer “e-book.”  So do many others who joined in by commenting on my article, and before that, in person at Book Camp, or just in talking with me. 

    True, I was charmed by Ernio’s “mindcakes,” even though it’s unlikely to gain wide adoption (certainly not by you), but I enjoy inventing and speculating, and so do many others.

    I really do think we need a new name in order to help free ourselves from fixating on the container of intellectual expression, instead of concentrating on the contents.

    I agree with those who said that the new name will rise organically from users,
    and that it will take some time. But there’s no harm in bringing it up for discussion.

    And since you’re contributing “kitty-cat shower curtain” to the list, dear Porter, let’s jump ahead and assume that any book you’ll be reading on a shower curtain will be called a “shnook.”

    •  HAAA!  Touché, @bklynanne:twitter ! I’ve put down my shnook — with its large, warm-and-fuzzy schnookmark in place, lol — to giggle at your clever response.

      Truth is that while I don’t feel the pressure to find a new nomenclature you do, I do find it surprisingly interesting to try to sort out just what DOES go into an effort to create a new word for something in vast use, with a history of one long line of names, and a near-army, worldwide, of folks who might “rather fight than switch,” lol. 

      For example, even in “mindcakes” — as I made merciless fun of it, of course, you know me — I kept thinking that the fundamental meaning of the term applied to books would most likely mean to raaders “cake” as in a treat, maybe a sweet treat. But it might also refer to more savory and nourishing traditions, as in crab cakes.

      Even a practical point came to me as I thought through this: a short word, preferably one syllable,  is preferable. For brevity in written form, recognizability and easy learning for very young kids, short is good.

      THIS then took me to other languages. If we were to have another word for an ebook, wouldn’t we need to consider how it translates into many languages?

      The world of advertising is littered with fantastic slogans and tag lines that were awesome in English and, once researched in other languages, had to be abandoned by red-faced account executives who hadn’t checked first to find out, for example, that in England you can drop by your friend’s apartment to give her a ride and “knock her up” at the front door. In one of the newsrooms I’ve worked in, we once had to rush new copy into place very fast because someone hadn’t known that it was rude to say, “One day after his re-election, the prime minister is already on the job.” Neither our writer nor two copy editors knew that “on the job” can have an off-color meaning in the home idiom. :)

      So today, a book may be a livre in France. But is a mindcake the same thing in Val d’Isere after skiing as it is in the US after hang-gliding?

      If not, the exercise could spawn far more confusion than we have now, with each language heading off into the pasture to choose its own presumably independent moniker. We may not be thinking only about a change in our own terms, in other words, but of many, many cultures’ terms when the Italians present the world with their new term for an ebook, the Chinese unveil their grand new word in Beijing, and Paris does away with the old and enunciates THE new book, et voila!

      Worst case? Great consternation on the international stage because “the Americans have taken it upon themselves to decide what we all must now call a book.”

      Not wanting that, we’re then descending into a decade of the dark nght of committee work, proposals and counter-proposals, huffy walk-outs and strange bedfellows’ alliances … now, I need a drink.

      I’ll just turn off my schnook and let it charge. :-) Fun speculation!

      •  Now you’re really getting into the spirit of the thing. But no dark nights ahead, or even white knights: just a great time reading our lex, our read, our tron, our leeb, our eforulus, our [insert moniker here], as commenters have imagined at http://bit.ly/AwiPUD.

  8. As for AWP12 (she forgot to mention earlier) I will definitely do the survey. Imagine – the opportunity to respond to individual sessions as well as the conference as a whole. For that, I say bravo (or brava, if appropriate). The presenter who began with “I haven’t really prepared anything” will not be getting a good review, though.

    •  Oh, how I feel for your presenter who opened up admitting he had nothing
      prepared,  Viki. :-)  You’re absolutely right, though, there’s no
      excuse for that, as we were saying back in Chicago. It is great to be
      able to address both sessions and the whole, I hope they get a good
      round of responses. :-)

  9. Thanks for starting us out with  some Q2Music to get us going on The Ether this week,Porter~ a value-added technique! Still love the table of contents but end up soaking it all up for fear of missing out (remember the  “FOMO” syndrome?) Several things resonated:Matthew Ingram’s idea of the “real competition being striving to be good enough for the majority of readers”; what is fair compensation for all the years of toil? “Instead of trying to preserve the printed book, which is not going to die out in our lifetime, publishers should be trying really hard to get more people reading (AMEN!), Roz Morris’ rampage on using the right language when we write and my favorite (Stop being amateurs and act like professionals), Anne Kostick’s tweet that “we waste time mourning books and should rename ebooks as “mindcakes.” And it looks like I didn’t miss much in Chicago except for lots of aggravation and a few good panels. You’ve served up another  fantastic feast with lots to chew on. I appreciate the weekly discussion/debate. Throughout it all, I still see readers who want to read good books. I will keep writing with intention for them.

    • As usual, Kathy ( @KathyPooler:twitter ), you’ve distilled such nicely pointed and clarifying bits of essence from the Ether — no mean feat, lol.  I’ve had a thought, in fact, which your last comment reminds me of. Have you tried Pinterest? I haven’t yet (pretty much feeling that one more social medium will wipe me out, lol). But when you talk about the readers who want to read good books, you’re right in line with some very smart people who tell us to get VERY clearly in mind who our readers are — what they look like, how they talk, walk, where they prefer to sit, what they do all day, what they eat and wear. It’s the kind of thing we do for our characters in fiction all the time. But it’s a fascinating idea to think of getting just as clear on readers, whether for fiction or for nonfiction, memoir, like your work. And my idea is that one might be able to use Pinterest to collect not pictures of bridal gowns (they look so bad on me, LOL), but images I run across online of my targeted readers. At work, at play, at home, in town … so many images all day long are flying around on screens ahead of us. If we could “pin” those things to our Pinterest boards, then we could actually start to see our imagined readers exactly as we think they look, just as we might see pictures of our own family members on the fridge. Kind of an interesting idea, isn’t it?

      • What an interesting idea, Porter. I’ve never considered “seeing” real pictures of my audience. I stalled a while before joining Pinterest, but figured, hey, if it wasn’t worth my time I could quit. As an author of romance novels, I find it amazing!

        For one, my name is attached to any picture I pin, whether I repin it or post it originally. This helps spread my name to people. Secondly, most people who use Pinterest are women–my target audience! By paying attention to the pictures they post, I can easily see what interests them.

        The best part about Pinterest is that it provides something meaningful (the act of trolling through beautiful pictures relaxes me and puts me in a good mood) and offers a simple way to connect with others.

        As meaty and delicious as this week’s Ether was, the big lightbulb moment for me came in this comment. Thanks! (And thanks, Kathy, for your lovely comment–we should all be intentional toward readers.)

        • Oh, super, Jill ( @JillKemerer:twitter ) – do check @RachelleGardner:twitter ‘s great “13 Points” on @Pinterest:twitter , too, just out on the 3rd. http://ow.ly/9zjJx  — and I’m glad you’re finding it so useful as a platform. I’m a bit less impressed so far, but working on the idea I mentioned here to Kathy for one of my @WriterUnboxed:twitter columns (fourth Saturday of each month) on social media.

          And thanks, as ever, for braving the Ether, you’re an incredibly faithful reader and commenter, totally appreciate all your time and interest. Did you get to listen to some of @Q2Music:twitter ? I’m hoping to supply the player in a non-intrusive spot each week for folks who are interested in exploring this kind of sonic assist to their work.

          Have a great weekend. Very glad it’s here, myself. :)

  10. Q2Music – thanks. Helped me to get the gist of your awesome summing up of this multiverse. I’m looking at the full moon and enjoy the calm it restores to my mind.

    • And what a marvelous full moon, huh?! I’ve been loving it, too. Wonderful work playing on Q2 right now, composer Phil Kline is on with Terry Riley’s mysterious-muscly “In C,” grand piece and a terrific example of the best in our contemporary-classical composers. (We’re in an amazing little era for this, it’s like Montmartre all over again in New York right now, there are close to 85 or 90 powerful, formidable composers at work there, plus many in other parts of the world, all feeding into the global stream of @Q2Music:twitter — so do enjoy whenever you like. It’s one of the greatest assets I’ve discovered for writing, the kind of collection of immediate, often world-premiere work that never in history could people hear, much less on a planetary real-time scale like this.  Do enjoy and thanks so much for letting me know you like Q2, Ashen, so kind of you to take a moment to say so!

  11. Oh, how I feel for your presenter who opened up admitting he had nothing prepared,  Viki. :-)  You’re absolutely right, though, there’s no excuse for that, as we were saying back in Chicago. It is great to be able to address both sessions and the whole, I hope they get a good round of responses. :-)

  12. Seth Godin draws the ire of many people. Seth may be wrong about some things and he is right about a lot more things. Overall, authors should follow his blog and pay attention to what Seth is saying. The problem is that most authors don’t want to hear the truth. Here are two quotes from Seth worth paying attention to that most authors will dismiss:

    “The best time to start promoting your book is three years before it comes out. Three years to build a reputation, build a permission asset, build a blog, build a following, build credibility and build the connections you’ll need later.”
     “Being average is for losers. Being better than 98 percent of the competition used to be fine. In the world of Google, though, it’s useless.  If you are not going to get to #1, you might as well quit right now.”

    Personally, I pay attention to people such as Seth Godin because of his success at marketing and selling his books. Results don’t lie, in other words. My paying attention to successful people such as Seth Godin has helped me sell 700,000 copies of my books (most of them self-published) worldwide and will help me sell 1,000,000 copies eventually.

    In the same vein, this is one of  my favorite quotations of all time.

    “If I wanted to become a tramp, I would seek information and advice from the most successful tramp I could find. If I wanted to become a failure, I would seek advice from men who have never succeeded. If I wanted to succeed in all things, I would look around me for those who are succeeding, and do as they have done.”— Joseph Marshall Wade
    In short, pay attention to Seth Godin. You may learn something valuable about how to be a successful author even if you don’t like to hear some the things he has to say.

    Ernie J. Zelinski
    Best-Selling Author, Innovator, and Prosperity Life Coach
    Author of the Bestseller “How to Retire Happy, Wild, and Free”
    (Over 150,000 copies sold and published in 9 languages)
    and the International Bestseller “The Joy of Not Working’
    (Over 250,000 copies sold and published in 17 languages)

  13. Great Scot, Porter. I’ve gained 5 lbs. just reading your post. (It took 3 bags of chips!)  But what a wonderful read. I’m so glad I didn’t go to AWP12. I’ve been to a Feb/Mar convention in Chicago before. Not fun. They don’t call it the windy city for nothing. The main thing I miss about Chicago is Meigs Field. Loved flying into that aerodrome. Very handy to downtown.

    • Ha! Sorry about the weight-gain, Jim. The trick is to use the table of contents and drop in on things, not try to read the whole Ether. (I’m convinced that soon it will take a full week to read it, so by the time you finish on week, it will be the next Thursday and time for another.) 

      Thanks for reading and commenting — yeah, I regret that AWP wasn’t a stronger experience but I feel sure the organizers want to work very seriously on it and surely they can have some improvements in place for next year. (Of course, it’s in Boston, which will mean an even worse wintry trip than Chicago, lol … so far I’ve had no luck whatever trying to tempt them down to our fabulous convention center accommodations in Tampa for 80-degree conferences on the waterfront. I keep trying.)

      Thanks again, bring your potato chips and come back next week. Good weekend –p.

  14. Pingback: This week in writing… birthday edition | Knitting with Pencils

  15. Some notes from the working author’s POV.

    First:  eBook pricing.  It’s a question of who makes the money?  One thing I see too much of is focusing on copies sold rather than royalties earned in eBooks.  I can’t pay my bills with copies sold.  It’s like Confederate currency.  A .99 eBook equals 6 $2.99 eBooks in royalties.  So Locke’s one million .99 eBooks sold equal 166,666 eBooks at $2.99.  Great marketing ploy, but it needs to be put in perspective.  He is an expert marketer and also note his book on how to sell the million eBooks in four months is $4.99.  In legacy publishing if you heard X number of hardcovers, trade or mass market, you had an idea of the finances.  eBooks is totally different.

    To muddy that picture though, many of those in traditional publishing who decry the .99 eBook need to look at their own royalty rates for authors.  My $5.99 mass market paperback at a Big 6 earned me a whopping .48 cents.  My .99 eBook earns me .35 cents.  Not that far different.  And the simple reality is there are many, many people who troll for that price point.  I have the numbers to back that up.

    I have been an on and off member of AWP for years but frankly, have little use for the academic writing community.  Their snobbish attitude toward writers who actually make money writing rather than teaching writing is wearisome.  Even when I was teaching at the Univ of WA, their creative writing department wanted absolutely no input from me on publishing, writing, or anything else I’ve learned in my years doing this for a living.  I laughingly send out CVs and application to many of those departments for their visiting writer which they advertise in their journal and get passed over for some somebody who has an MFA and a novel published by a university press which might be considered a vanity press for their own professors and students.  The ivory tower is indeed that and rarely wants to be muddied by the real world outside of it.

    How many universities are teaching digital publishing?  Genre fiction?  The economics of making a living writing?  How many are preparing their students to make a living in publishing rather than becoming part of a self-propagating system where their own students will then become their own teachers, the snake eating its own tail?  I know some programs are trying unique things and trying to break out of this, but not enough.

    To take all this a step further, as noted about TOC, how many panels at this conference are made up of actual writers who make their living selling their writing, rather than experts telling others how to do something they themselves aren’t doing?  In Ranger School is was so much easier to be the RI– Ranger Instructor– watching the student leading the patrol floundering about than being the patrol leader.  I have nothing against experts and listen to their advice, but if we want to know what’s going on in the trenches, let’s ask those in them.  I’ve done .99 eBooks, free via Select, helped invent Nook First, turned down Encore, but am talking to Thomas & Mercer and 49 North, have over 40 titles that went through the Big 6, and killed a gopher with a stick.  There are many other authors who have learned all this the hard way, by jumping into the new world of publishing with their entire livelihood on the line.  I think they have some expertise which publishers, conference, agents, etc. could find useful.

    • This is all great input, Bob ( @Bob_Mayer:twitter  ), and particularly the odd numbers game of these deep discount prices.

      If we put aside the figures, I guess what still bugs me is that the concept of books for 99 cents (or free) is hardly the way to help the public understand the value and difficulty of the writing life. As I was saying recently to a colleague, I think so much of the pricing debate these days is based on print prices — and not on the author’s investment — that I fear we’ve let the bar be set very low (especially in light of the fact that very few writers have a fine, big backlist like yours to digitize.

      It’s great you have some talks going on, all the best with those.

      And lastly, in terms of what I’m looking for from ToC or DBW for writers isn’t panels of writers. Those, I want to see at writing conferences and — in some cases, at conferences for publishers, like the self-publishing panel you were on at DBW. For writers, I specifically want them to hear from other parts of the business. We have so much writer training out there now that an author can barely walk without running into it. I want our authors to hear from the others in the industry for exactly the reason that they’re hearing from other writers and writing instructors all the time. That’s the distinction of the sort of “publishing core” business conferences for writers I want to see.

      We’ll see if anything develops. Meanwhile, thanks again for all your good input and experienced comment, much appreciated!

  16. When Jim Hamlett talked about weight gain, I thought it was a nice metaphor for the weight of useful wisdom in the Ether column.
    Huge thanks for mentioning my post. I’m delighted at the response in the comments (now more than 100 of them). We don’t all agree about some points of correct or accepted usage, but we are all passionate about taking care with our writing. And I have you to thank for this anyway. Something you provoked me to say in a comment on Ether last week triggered the whole post in my mind. So we have come full circle.

    Of the pieces I want to applaud … your discussion of how much work goes into a good book, especially one that is lasting and original. For the rate of pay, it’s almost like writers are in the grip of an extravagant hobby. In terms of hours we will never be recompensed for, we’re in such negative equity it would be cheaper to take up polo than to take up fiction-writing. 

    And big thanks for finding Steven Pressfield’s piece on speaking engagements. The page is where I want to perform; it is the craft I have learned. Speaking is not the same. Making writers take speaking engagements is like those 1970s variety shows where every guest was expected to sing a song.
    Actually, I’d far rather do that. Folks, I am not available for speaking, but I am for singing.

    • “An extravagant hobby!”  All too true, Roz, ( @ByRozMorris:twitter ). I’m heading for the polo field now.  Thanks so much for taking on the get-it-right campaign, and for your kind words here (and Undercover Soundtracks there!). I really like so much of what @spressfield:twitter does with his blog. Even when he’s working in his historic-battle arena, there’s so much to learn from the guy. We don’t have enough such warrior-poets left, really (and I don’t know where they went, either). Careful what you offer, we might request that song. :)

  17. Pingback: Extra Ether | Jane Friedman

  18. Pingback: Writing on the Ether | Jane Friedman

  19. Pingback: We Grow Media » Stop Worrying About The Cost Of An eBook – Start Focusing on Lifetime Value

Join the conversation