Blog Archives

The egalitarian, hard-work myth dismantled

Posted on by

102_0469aMichael Bourne at The Millions takes on the egalitarian myth behind teaching the craft of writing:

[T]he problem with craft talks isn’t what is being said from the podium. The problem is the unspoken message of the genre of the craft talk itself, which is that one becomes a successful writer by mastering a series of discrete elements of literary craft. You learn to keep your scenes short. You gain a deeper understanding of the role of voice in narrative fiction. You remember to always put a little bad in your good characters and a little good in your bad characters, and — poof! — one day you open your laptop and discover you have written A Visit from the Goon Squad.

This is a species of magical thinking. It is, of course, impossible to write a good book without a deep appreciation of how language and stories work, but it doesn’t follow that successful writers have simply worked at it harder than less successful ones or that their understanding of the craft of fiction is any more acute. What successful writers have that their less successful counterparts do not is talent. [emphasis mine]

This inconvenient fact offends our sensibilities because it is elitist and because it means that for all but a very lucky few of us, literary greatness remains beyond our grasp. A belief in the transformative properties of craft also undergirds an ever-growing industry of creative writing education that, one way or another, now pays the bills for most working poets and literary writers. For these reasons, we have constructed a culture of discussing creative writing designed to skirt the obvious. Because craft exists outside us and can be improved through effort, a focus on craft gives us a way to talk about bad writing that is less hurtful to the writer. The successful writer is saved from having to tell the less successful one, “Sorry, but you have no talent.” Instead, the successful writer can say, “You need to work on your craft.”

This analysis coheres neatly with what I have said about the “Authorhood of All Readers” myth and the dangers of pyramid scheme dynamics in a publishing culture wherein writing teachers teach writing to writers who will primarily go on to teach other writers (to be writing teachers).

To read the rest of Bourne’s fascinating piece, check it out here!

Category: My Two Cents, Sharing

Tales from the Medieval Arab world

Posted on by

Xzibit-1001NightsThe very first book I ever bought with my own money (insofar as a grade-schooler can be said to have his own money) was A Thousand and One Nights, more commonly known as The Arabian Nights. I bought it at a yard sale in Cinco, West Virginia. I can still remember the spare illustrations, and the leathery texture of the cornflower blue cover.

Several of the tales that would eventually be incorporated into the Nights were originally published in the 10th century as Tales of the Marvellous and News of the Strange, the earliest anthology of Arabic short stories. The Guardian recently featured a review of the first English translation of Tales:

The variety of the tales – a mix of comedy, fantasy and derring-do – is instantly appealing, as is their headlong narrative drive. Unlike the stories of the Arabian Nights (in which Scheherazade’s talking for her life is the thread on which the collection is hung) they have no unifying frame, and profess no didactic purpose. If there is a common element to them it is that they are almost all concerned to a greater or lesser degree with sexual or romantic love. They seem sensual, capriciously violent…

Check out the rest here!

_

For my frame-story pointers referencing A Thousand and One Nights, go here.

Category: Sharing

Passive Guy shows how Hachette is shooting itself in the foot

Posted on by

jnlThe Passive Voice blog (“A Lawyer’s Thoughts on Authors, Self-Publishing and Traditional Publishing”) has posted an extensive quote from GigaOm on the details of the recent Amazon-Hachette deal.

But, what I found more interesting was the Passive Guy‘s economic analysis of traditional publishers’ myopic and desperate tactics. The bold emphasis is mine:

Since Big Publishing has attempted to use ebook pricing to protect the sales of physical books in physical bookstores in the past, PG suspects it will continue to do so in the future. If this is the case, Hachette ebook prices on Amazon will be higher than Amazon would set those prices if the folks in Seattle had unfettered pricing discretion.

If PG’s suspicions are anywhere close to correct, it appears that indie authors will continue to be able to undercut the price of ebooks from Hachette while earning royalties from KDP that are much higher than Hachette authors receive.

PG says that indie authors are much smarter about pricing ebooks on Amazon than Big Publishing is … Like Amazon, indie authors don’t have any legacy sales channels to distract them from setting an optimum price for ebooks.

Trying to protect a legacy business with legacy margins is a classic mistake that established business organizations make when faced with a technology disruption that allows lower-priced competitors into a marketplace. Doing so allows the lower-priced competitors to survive and thrive. And eventually put the legacy model out of business.

Check out the rest at The Passive Voice.

Category: Sharing | Tags: , , ,

Author J. A. Konrath dismantles AG-AU hypocrisy and the agency model

Posted on by

Hard to argue with these numbers:

picard-face-palmThe Authors Guild has, many times in the past, voiced that ebook royalties should be raised. So do something about it.

The AG, and Authors United, have been able to get beaucoup media attention during the Hachette/Amazon spat … Now the AG, and all of the bestselling authors who supported AU, need to show some backbone and integrity and use the same tactics to force the Big 5 to raise digital royalties …

Konrath's numbers, my chart

Konrath’s numbers, my chart

On a $25 hardcover, the author makes about $3.75, and the publisher around $5, after all production, delivery, and middleman costs (distributors and booksellers). On a $25 ebook, an author makes $4.37, and the publisher $13.12. How did this happen? Where was the outrage when this was slipped into all major publishing contracts? …

I won’t point fingers, but a Google or Twitter search will show how many authors seem to think Amazon is bad, the agency model is good, and the poor Big 6 are getting the shaft. Uh, no. That’s just plain wrong. I’m going to explain why the agency model in this particular case is indeed bad for authors …

Under the prior [wholesale] model, Amazon bought ebooks at a percentage of the recommended retail price. Then they priced them how they saw fit. The wholesale price for ebooks was often about half of the hardcover price. So a $25 recommended retail price meant Amazon paid $12.50 for the ebook. According to most contracts, the author made 25% of the net price the publisher received. So at the above numbers, an author would make $3.12 NO MATTER WHAT PRICE AMAZON SOLD THE EBOOK FOR.

Konrath-AuthorTake

Konrath’s numbers, my chart

In other words, if Amazon wanted to sell the ebook for $9.99, the author still makes $3.12. Sell it for $5.99? Author makes $3.12. Sell it for 99 cents? Author makes $3.12.

So what happens when the agency model comes into play? First of all, Amazon no longer controls the price … Amazon works its butt off trying to keep prices low. That’s why so many people shop there.

With the wholesale model, authors made more money per unit and sold more units. Funny thing is, publishers also made more money under the wholesale model. But instead the Big 6 decided they wanted an agency model. Authors still get 25% of net. But net has gotten lower in almost all cases.

With the wholesale model, net was $12.50. With the agency model, net is 17.5% of the list price set by the publisher. So the publisher sells it for $12.99, the author makes $2.27. Sell it for $9.99? Author makes $1.74. Sell it for $5.99? Author makes $1.04. Sell it for 99 cents? Author makes 17 cents.

Read the rest at J. A. Konrath‘s blog, A Newbie’s Guide to Publishing.

Now that Amazon and Hachette have signed a contract…

Posted on by

mytwocentsI suppose I should say something now that Amazon and Hachette have ended their dispute by signing a multi-year contract. After all, I’ve had plenty to say about it up to this point.

Continue reading

You don’t make a better story by crapping out on plot

Posted on by

readingIn discussing a recent stop-gap installment in a popular fantasy series, Jim Bennet at the Deseret News offers this critique of anti-plot elitism in literary criticism:

The fact is that there are plenty of pointless, pretentious stories out there, along with snooty supporters of these stories who denigrate the people who aren’t part of the club. If someone dares to point out that the emperor has no clothes, that someone obviously isn’t smart enough to appreciate the finer things in life. You see this attitude in English departments in universities all across the country. In the mind of the professorial class, true literature consists entirely of impenetrable books that require the intervention of academia in order to make any sense of them at all. Books that people actually love to read are dismissed as juvenile, silly and a waste of time.

There may have been a time when I cared what others thought of my literary tastes. But that time has long since passed. At this stage in my life, I expect stories to include plots that are clear and compelling and characters that matter to me.

If that makes me a rube, so be it. At least with the rubes, the reading’s a whole lot better.

I would phrase it this way.

There are many ways that a story can be valuable: (a) well-written prose, (b) compelling characters or setting, (c) sophisticated ideas, (d) clear plot. Subtracting any of these subtracts from the value of the story.

a + b + c < a + b + c + d

Transverse selection in the military

Posted on by

transverse-selectionThe consequences of transverse selection are now being exposed in the US military, with one Air Force colonel complaining that the Service’s physical fitness standards select against too many airmen who excel at their actual job requirements.

Of course, physical readiness is certainly important to military readiness, but it is no longer the cornerstone of most military occupations, particularly in the Navy and Air Force.

Like those archaic pike and musket formations that still guide our social construction of what military discipline is all about, the over-emphasis of physical over mental readiness is a lingering trope that desperately needs reform.

In the Information Age, “fit for service” means much more than body fat percentage and push-ups per minute, and clinging to out-dated social ideals of the perfect warrior drives a bad selection process that costs us good Service members, which costs lives, and could one day cost us a war.

Category: Uncategorized

Another reminder of why we should change that planet’s name

Posted on by

Isn’t it about time we renamed that planet already? Yes, that one.
Uranus

Category: My Two Cents

Could Melville House’s incessant whining about Amazon become any more unprofessional?

Posted on by

The latest anti-Amazon tantrum over at Melville House has really taken spin and smug self-delusion to new heights: Continue reading

Would you read these to your kids?

Posted on by

wereadtoknowwearenotaloneYou might have heard that the original Grimm fairy tales were far more grim than the cleaned-up versions with which we’ve become familiar.

Well, Jack Zipes, a professor of German and comparative literature at the University of Minnesota, decided to translate the earliest edition of these stories into English for the first time, with all of the horror and unsavory details included. Continue reading

Category: Sharing