May 24 2012
Thursday Midday Links: Apple files motion to dismiss in DOJ case, Pondering the phrase “shit eating grin”, & a few deals
There isn’t much happening in the book world today. Apple has filed its motion to dismiss in the DOJ suit. Obviously Cotes will deny this motion but Apple has to make it in order to preserve its right to appeal.
Here’s some food for thought. McKenzie Walton tweeted this the other day “One of my least favorite terms is ‘shit-eating grin’. Like, I don’t even know what that means. That’s GROSS.”
My god, she is so right.
In lieu of book news, here are some random links that might interest you:
Nick Denton: The Banner Ad Era is Closing | Digiday – ““We all know the conventional wisdom: the days of the banner advertisement are numbered,” Denton wrote in an email to Gawker staff. “In two years, our primary offering to marketers will be our discussion platform.” Gawker recently revamped its commenting system in a way that Denton hopes will improve the quality of conversation on the site. He also hopes to find ways for advertisers to participate, noting in an email that “in a couple of years I could see “discussion management” being more important than traditional online advertising.”” DigiDay Personal Note:There was another article that talked about how Gawker’s new commenting system would work in that the originator of a thread could control the types of comments people saw, thus shaping the conversation. I find that quite disturbing.
Astor+Blue | Digital Publisher, Classic Publishing – “We are an innovative “Digital First” Publisher dedicated to producing the highest quality ebooks and custom print editions by leveraging the latest in Digital Technology and New Media. We curate a list of well-written books by authors of diverse voices, and devote ourselves to actively helping readers from around the globe discover – and rediscover – those voices. Through the “Digital First” platform, A+B does not merely publish books, we E-LAUNCH them through a highly specialized, long term, proactive marketing program. We strive to be a destination for where to find ebooks, and where ebooks will “find their readers” as well. In short: We maximize each title’s readership and keep it alive indefinitely. This is our mission.” This is not a romance digital publisher but a literary fiction one. I’m not certain it would be of interest to the readers here. Astor + Blue
BuzzFeed Animals – A whole category devoted to listings of cute animal pictures. BuzzFeed
As for deals, here is a good one for you:
- The Forever Instinct by Barbara Delinksy * $2.99 * A | BN | K | S
- First Things First by Barbara Delinksy * $2.99 * A | BN | K | S
- The Scent of Jasmine by Barbara Delinksy * $2.99 * A | BN | K | S
- Straight from the Heart by Barbara Delinksy * $2.99 * A | BN | K | S
- This Heart of Mine with Bonus Content by Susan Elizabeth Phillips * $1.99 * A | BN | K | S
Send to Kindle
May 24, 2012 @ 10:23:55
Oh shoot! Did you guys see this link about reviews? I was hoping to see it up here for discussion.
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2012/when-you-wish-upon-a-star-you-get-the-pointy-end-why-authors-should-always-respond-to-negative-reviews/
May 24, 2012 @ 10:30:56
Without consulting Google, et al., here is my take on that grin thing: An overly-broad smile that avoids the stuff in your mouth. Ugh.
Which kind of makes me think about all the comments going around about poor Apple-evil DOJ/Amazon. Do not want to hear or see it.
May 24, 2012 @ 10:48:47
@Jennifer Leeland: I loved Stacia Kane’s response blogpost to that.
May 24, 2012 @ 10:58:01
I can’t for the life of me remember what book I read it in, but someone realizes that the grin comes from watching someone ELSE eat the shit. Makes perfect sense now. :)
May 24, 2012 @ 11:01:04
I never liked that phrase, either. It really is gross. Why would you be grinning if you were doing/just got done doing THAT? Eeeeewwwwww.
May 24, 2012 @ 11:02:57
@RowanS: Never thought of it like that. Huh. Yeah, now it does make sense.
May 24, 2012 @ 11:10:58
Jennifer, I followed your link. What a bully. At least Ridley and Shiloh stood up to her. Hopefully people won’t take her advice.
May 24, 2012 @ 11:20:58
Am I the only one who reacts poorly to “buzz” words? The word “leveraging” simply has no business in that description, except to show that someone spent time in an MBA program, and the use of “E-LAUNCH” and “maximize” also make me roll my eyes and think that this is a company I’d stay far, far away from.
May 24, 2012 @ 11:38:24
Shit-eating Grin, from the OED:
coarse slang (orig. U.S.).
Designating a broad grin expressing uncontrollable delight or self-satisfaction, esp. characterized by awareness of having got away with something normally considered outrageous or improper; (also) designating a consciously disarming, self-deprecating, slightly cheeky grin, often used to deflect censure or disapproval.
1956 J. Moffett in New World Writing No. 10. 16 You’ve got the most shit-eating grin I ever saw.
1958 Stack A Lee (typescript, Kinsey Inst.) 1 Another bitch looked at Stack with a shit eating smile And said, dont look like you’ve had any for quite awhile.
1967 N. Mailer Why are we in Vietnam? vii. 119 ‘I think this bear went from massive shock,’ said Big Luke, hardly able to hold back a massive shocker of a shit-eating grin.
1988 J. McInerney Story of my Life vi. 101 He’s wearing his extraspecial shit-eating grin, the one that he gets after a blow job.
2000 Sydney Morning Herald (Nexis) 11 Jan. 6 A shit-eating smirk spread across Weasel’s face.
2007 Kerrang! 2 June 29/2 ‘Did you enjoy the show?’ asks the shit-eating grin plastered all over his sweaty face, but not standing still long enough to wait for an answer.
May 24, 2012 @ 11:43:27
The mighty Google leads me to the earliest citations in the mid-fifties*, which always describe the “sh*t-eating grin” in someone doing something socially contemptible: exhibiting prurient curiosity, for example, or boasting about a piece of juicy gossip. The context also usually seems to be military, which suggests an origin for the phrase.
*discounting the outlier, Livy’s description of the rictus displayed by members of a Carthaginian copraphagous sect
May 24, 2012 @ 11:44:53
A-a-and Isobel Carr beat me to it.
May 24, 2012 @ 12:11:08
@Jane None of the links work (except Kobo)for the Susan Elizabeth Phillips’ deal.
May 24, 2012 @ 12:23:09
@Kim – wow, my links were all screwed up. Thanks!
May 24, 2012 @ 12:52:14
The new Gawker commenting system is working fabulously…if you’d like more spam mixed in with your bigoted trolls. I shudder to think what will happen to Jezebel when the new system is rolled out there.
May 24, 2012 @ 13:02:10
Being from the south, “shit-eating grin” is fairly mild compared to some of the other terminolgy used around my neck of the woods. Doesn’t make it any less gross, but you sort of grow immune to it. And it’s used incorrectly a LOT.
May 24, 2012 @ 13:10:52
I remember fondly a review of an m/m book where the reviewer highlights a scene in which one guy has a “shit-eating grin” RIGHT after rimming his lover.
Now, THAT is a touch too much. :)
(And, no, don’t make me google for the review. The THINGS I would find.)
May 24, 2012 @ 13:42:06
You know, the gawker comment thing is disturbing, but I can think of at least one way it would be handy. You could eliminate derailing 101 comments in discussions involving race/gender/sexuality discussions. If I’m the thread originator, and my comment is about racism, and we got a good back and forth going, we could hide and ignore the obligatory, “But there’s no WHITE entertainment television! That’s reverse racism!” and the other charming gems that always pop up and hinder discussion of the actual issue at hand.
I’m only “pro” this option if it’s like the Newsvine structure, where the comments are still accessible, they just don’t immediately display. I think it would be too easy for people to abuse the feature otherwise. “What do you mean, you don’t like Gwyneth Paltrow’s dress?! Comment deleted!”
May 24, 2012 @ 14:42:09
@Jennifer Leeland: Thanks for sharing that article! I wish more authors had this perspective, instead of lashing out at readers who give negative reviews. I once gave a 2-star review to a new author’s debut novel. The author replied with a snide comment, then she sicced a sock puppet on me. I went from thinking I’d give her second book a try, to putting her on my never-again author list. But if she had engaged me in a mature conversation about my impressions of her book, I’m sure I would have picked up her next book when it released.
May 24, 2012 @ 15:15:21
@Jennifer Leeland: Wow. Well there’s an author that’s permanently off of my list. I can never trust that anyone revieing her books hasn’t been bullied into giving a good review. All I can say to reviewers is don’t change your review because an author is harrassing your – credibility is really a reviewer’s most important asset. If readers don’t think a reviewer is being honest (or can be manipulated or bullied into changing his/her opinion), we’ll stop reading those reviews. It’s why I don’t even look at Amazon reviews – I just don’t believe them. As for authors, please don’t follow this advice – it’s just going to make readers like me very angry if I find out that you’re interfering with honest reviews.
May 24, 2012 @ 15:16:20
@Michelle:
Is it just me, or did they shut off comments to that blog post?
May 24, 2012 @ 15:17:35
@di:
What’s there to worry about? It’s not like Jezebel could possibly get any shittier than it is already.
May 24, 2012 @ 15:17:58
Shoot! Hit return too quick. I meant to add is if so, I wonder if they did that because she didn’t get the response she was hoping for.
May 24, 2012 @ 15:34:48
@Stephani Hecht: I think it was because some commenters were less than polite. To be fair, an author oozing that level of smug entitlement really could use a good ad hominem smack across the face, but the blog owner didn’t seem to agree.
May 24, 2012 @ 16:15:04
@Jane As the owner of a dog and four cats, a “shit-eating grin” is the look of delight my dog gives me every time he manages to get into the cat box. The delight is always tempered with the knowledge that he got away with something and will soon be in trouble. It’s gross, but a spot-on phrase.
May 24, 2012 @ 16:37:18
@iferlohmann: *Shudder*
@Jennifer Leeland: I did see the link and I just felt like the author was attention seeking and I didn’t want to give her further space. It’s always a dilemma for me. Do I post about this type of behavior and “reward” it or do I ignore it?
May 24, 2012 @ 16:43:24
If you’ve ever watched a dog munch on what we refer to around here as “Kitty Almond Roca” from the garden, you know exactly what a shit-eating grin is.
May 24, 2012 @ 16:57:21
@Isobel Carr: Soooo, that’d be the grin of a brownnoser then.
May 24, 2012 @ 17:12:18
@Jane: That was my opinion when I saw the link that Jennifer posted. It seemed that the author was err, trolling for traffic/attention.
That being said, none of the authors I read engage in this sort of ludicrous behavior.
May 24, 2012 @ 19:34:29
@Readsalot81: Oh, she got some attention all right, but I don’t think it was the kind she was hoping for.
Stacia’s post was fantastic.
May 24, 2012 @ 21:26:10
@Jennifer Leeland: I just read the blog…I loved Shiloh Walker’s response!
May 25, 2012 @ 01:00:42
It seems to me that the kind of discussion that will be allowed on sponsor-tended sites will be bland beyond belief and likely to be avoided. I hope they announce that they are sponsored.
The Astor Blue announcement is interesting because of the word, ‘curate.’ It used to be that publishers’ job was to publish. Now that anyone can do that through the web, they need to reinvent their purpose and curation is a pretentious term for gate-keeping. At present, my experience is that authors are effective brands. If I found a publisher brand that was a reliable source of good books, I’d follow it. Such brands are likely to be small, because with a big brand, there’s a pressure to appeal to everyone. Harlequin, for example, has done a good job of being the brand, but I find the author a much more reliable gauge of whether I’m going to like the book.
May 25, 2012 @ 12:03:35
@Jane:
I found the article…well….interesting. I don’t agree, but I found her analogy and her argument something to discuss.
It raised my eyebrows because I was sure there were authors out there going “Yeah! That’s absolutely right”. Scary thought.
That said, it looks like the comments offered the opposite side and was well represented. I don’t know if she was attention seeking, but it IS a dilemma for authors and I wondered what everyone’s take was on her arguments. Thank you all for chiming in.
May 25, 2012 @ 12:27:27
The problem is that writers are forced into an occupation (marketing) that, had they wanted to be that, they would’ve been that. Most of us aren’t wired that way and we’re all stumbling in the dark, trying to figure out what works. Some of us (like me) make haphazard attempts now and again that just bite us in the tuchus, so we withdraw completely because it’s just such a distasteful, time-consuming, and neverending task.
I dare say most of us writers would like the reader/writer wall to remain intact as much as any reader.
May 25, 2012 @ 12:35:23
Are the book deals listed for the day only and/or the US sites only? They often don’t work for me when I check… Thanks
May 25, 2012 @ 12:37:51
@Allison: They are almost always for U.S. only. I can’t actually see the deals from other Amazon sites. Some of the deals are one day only but most of them are for some period but I don’t know. I troll Amazon for them using publisher and price and then post them if I think that they are available at most stores.
I try not to post an Amazon only exclusive.
May 25, 2012 @ 13:24:56
Books on the Knob is reporting a major sale on English language books at Amazon Germany. I clicked through and saw what appeared to be really good deals.
http://blog.booksontheknob.org/2012/05/todays-deals_25.html