On the “specialness” of books
We’re all familiar with the assertion that books are “special,” and therefore deserving of different treatment than other commercial products. I used believe it myself. Until, that is, folks like Jon Sargent and Authors United started using it to justify crap like agency pricing and the shunning of Amazon. To wit, compliments of Authors United:
Amazon has every right to refuse to sell consumer goods in response to a pricing disagreement with a wholesaler. But books are not mere consumer goods. Books cannot be written more cheaply, nor can authors be outsourced to another country. Books are not toasters or televisions. Each book is the unique, quirky creation of a lonely, intense, and often expensive struggle on the part of a single individual, a person whose living depends on his or her book finding readers. This is the process Amazon endangers when it uses its tremendous power to separate authors from their readership.
So does anyone actually believe that these authors don’t want to sell the most books possible – excuse me, the most new books possible? That if Amazon were still selling Hachette books and doing it alongside toasters and instant macaronic and cheese, that Authors United would even exist? Because I don’t.
Okay, so let’s break this down a little. Joanna Cabot of TeleRead articulates a good starting point for this analysis, I think:
. . . book production may not benefit from widgetization. But book SELLING does. This is the point many authors fail to realize—that you can’t conflate the two things. And when you separate them out, you can do each one of them better.
Yes, book production is, in large part, a creative process. Of course, ideas about what people will read – i.e. whether a book will sell enough to justify the publisher’s investment – also inform this process, and those ideas are related to how consumers will spend their money and how many books will likely sell. Just like selling books is largely a commercial endeavor, even though many booksellers will tell you that there’s an art to selling, and many readers have benefitted from a talented hand-seller. So the distinction isn’t quite as easy as Cabot makes it. Still, I think it’s important to note that when we get into discussions about selling books, we have to take into consideration the fact that publishers, authors, and retailers all want books to sell as many copies as possible. And one of the most coveted lists for an author to appear on is the New York Times Bestseller list, which doesn’t measure a book’s literary value, but rather how many copies are moving off the shelves.
Of course, a book that sells well may also be judged as one of value (a book like The Help, which is problematic in other ways, is a good example of how word of mouth and hand-selling can turn a book into a bestseller), but there are also huge bestsellers that continue to face derision (Fifty Shades, for example). Still, how many authors would refuse to have their books sold like other consumer goods if it would guarantee them a bestseller?
I think for me the real problem is that the whole “books are special” argument has become a hammer on the part of publishers and authors, where every reader is the proverbial nail. And we readers are being hit over the head with arguments about how we should accept agency pricing because books are special, or we should stop shopping at Amazon because books are special – or whatever the agenda happens to be at the moment. And underneath it all really seems to be the refrain that some books (or genres) are more special than others, and that we should all be in agreement on which are and are not.
If anyone should be deciding whether books are special, it should be readers. No, let me correct that. Anyone can believe that books are special. Authors, publishers, editors, cover artists, marketing advocates – whoever. But the only people who should be deciding for readers if and when and which books are special, are readers.
As a reader, what I see happening is that the books are special argument is being used to bolster the economic self-interest of publishers and authors, and, in many cases, to manipulate readers into using their power as consumers to a) turn a book into a bestseller, b) police reviews, often on behalf of an author who can’t stand his/her “baby” criticized by reviewers, c) pay more for a book than we otherwise might, d) participate in an author’s marketing process, perhaps by joining a street team or informally promoting a book to other readers, and e) perceiving our best interests to run parallel or entwined with those of the author and/or publisher.
Some of this might be harmless or even valid. A robust book market, for example, serves readers, authors, and publishers by providing multiple, diverse options. And reader loyalty can yield benefits like early access to content or free supplemental content that may be worth if to the reader. However, when readers are enlisted to act as foot soldiers for an author or a publisher, it may not all be so innocent, even if there is no bad intent.
Moreover, author and publisher interests do not always or even naturally align with reader interests. For example, it may be in Author X’s perceived best interest to place her books in front of Author Y’s books in the bookstore. That is definitely not in the interest of Author Y’s readers (or Author Y, for that matter). Publishers want to sell the most books at the greatest profit. Readers, on the other hand, want the most value for their money, whatever that may be (and the equation varies from reader to reader, book to book). We all pursue our own best interests — such is the nature of a competitive marketplace — but we don’t always acknowledge that those interests may conflict. And in situations where readers are being asked to participate in the marketing campaigns of authors, I think these potential conflicts need to be carefully considered.
For example, we’ve all seen examples of an author who reads a negative review of her book that – of course – she deems absolutely unjustified, and then encourages (directly or indirectly) her “loyal” readers to either shout down the review with positive reviews, or to directly challenge the reviewer, possibly creating a hostile and over-personalized stand-off over a book review. Or readers may be told that they will be locked out of an author’s Facebook page if they don’t buy a book. At that point, the book becomes more a weapon than anything else, and reader interests may actually stand in conflict to the author’s, even as the author is calling on readers to support his or her cause.
Of course, for readers, some books are special, but not every book is special to every reader. And not every kind of specialness is the same. However, that books can be many things to many people may be one source of their value. I honestly cannot think of an instance where readers have argued that there is no difference between a toaster and a novel. If anything, making that distinction seems to highlight the extent to which “value” is being conflated with “values,” such that valuing books is primarily a moral or ethical exercise that somehow determines the worth of the reader. In fact, the equation should be reversed: the economic value of a book may be estimated by the author/publisher, but its social, cultural, personal, or artistic value will always be determined by the reader, and that valuation will change from reader to reader and book to book. Authors and publishers cannot make readers value one book above another, or books in general above other things; in many instances the reader will even reject the equation between the price of a book and its prospective value. And there are books that some readers will argue have so little value as to be a detriment to the market.
This is not to say that books are unimportant or that they are not part of a society’s artistic expression. But importance and specialness are not the same thing. Importance is related to the way societies as a whole value cultural literacy, reading, and the availability of literature in the broadest sense. It’s not always about how much they’re loved or even valued by readers, even though the way individuals respond to books can be very powerful, even life-changing. Just as the discussions we have around books can be very powerful and significant in different ways. We can benefit intellectually from books, be enriched emotionally or psychologically, be challenged, educated, turned off, enraged, repulsed, or bored stiff by books. Without question, books also have a unique role to play as cultural artifacts, because they often speak to future generations about what the human imagination could conjure at any given moment in time.
For that alone, they are not identical to toasters or widgets. Reviewing books is not the same thing as reviewing a diet aid (I’m thinking of FTC regulation here), but neither is it the same thing as collecting keepsakes and chronicling all the firsts that parents do for their actual children. Books are unique as a category, and specific people have special relationships to specific books, but in many ways – now more than ever – books are also consumer goods, much in the way of computer games, magazines, toys, and other forms of entertainment people spend money to enjoy. In no way do readers owe any author or publisher a living, nor does the ability to make a living from writing and/or publishing automatically confer a special status anymore than the invention of a million dollar toaster does.
Can reading be special? Absolutely. Can some books be special to some readers? Absolutely. But as long as books are being made available within the stream of commerce, and their value determined at least in part by how much they cost and how many copies are sold, books are consumer goods. And really, I’m not sure I believe that any author or publisher wouldn’t want to be ranked #1 on Amazon, even if it meant being sold alongside a million dollar toaster.
So what do you think? Do you buy Authors United’s distinctions, and if so, why? What do books, reading, and talking about books mean to you? What book is most special to you, and why?
I think books are special in the sense that reading fiction is special. It can take you anywhere the author’s imagination leads. But that doesn’t mean authors are special snowflakes or that the selling of books falls into some special non-commerce space where it is not a transaction between a consumer and seller. And don’t get me started on the whole book equals baby thing.
I think I am still in denial that the authors who supposedly signed that letter to Amazon actually read the entire letter.
i say vote with your wallet. I have purposely chosen to not purchase any books that was written by anyone in this group. I will not be told how I am to spend my money, it doesn’t matter how “special” this group thinks it is.
Books are not special, a baby, nor anything else. They are an object that is purchased with my hard earned dollars. If Amazon or any other seller can get the books at a lower price, than that is what I want.
I think that often when authors say ‘books are special’ what they really mean is ‘people who write books are special and we all owe them a nice living’ and particularly what they mean is ‘people who write books like mine are special and you all owe me a nice living’.
Books are very special to me and I have many dearly loved volumes which I will never part with. But that emotional specialness has nothing to do with their market value. I can love a book I bought for 50p in a charity shop as much as one I paid £25 for the hardback. And at the production end, I don’t see that there is a scarcity of books or authors so that the remaining few need to be protected for the sake of society. In fact there is a very obvious glut of books and authors. So I am not worried if those whose works don’t sell in great number find that they have to get another job to pay the bills. I do not think the sky is falling. People are still buying and reading books. Plenty of people are still writing books. No one needs special protection to make that happen.
I do think books are special in certain ways (as well as unique and important), but trying to apply the nature of books to any sort of argument about selling or marketing books (from Amazon’s policies to street teams) is ridiculous. If books are genuinely that special and that important, the only thing it means for authors is we need to write better books. Selling books will always be a commercial process.
I’m still shaking my head over that Authors United letter and, like Library addict, am hoping most of the authors who signed it didn’t actually read the letter.
I’ll second or third the notion that this is less about the specialness of books and more about the specialness of these particular authors who want all readers to: 1) Purchase THEIR books; 2) Read their books; 3) Say nothing but good things about their books. (Why their books, and not one of the many, many other books?)
I’ve seen an awful lot of delusion on the part of writers both successful and unsuccessful. They talk about how long it takes to learn the craft and how difficult it is, but at heart some of them really seem to think they should be paid to write books because they want to write books — which is not how work operates for anyone else.
Or (in the case of more successful authors) they seem to think they are being ripped off whenever someone reads a book they haven’t actually purchased themselves. They don’t acknowledge that to be a bestselling author, you’re dependent on having enough people read their books to create critical mass — which by necessity is going to include many people who share and borrow the books they read. If we found a way to magically let only those who could pay for books read them, all authors would suffer.
None of this is to say that there couldn’t or shouldn’t be some state support of the art of writing — but I think it ‘s fair to say that such state support should go to authors who are writing brilliant or important work in a marginal area which wouldn’t be expected to make money, but which has the possibility of enriching our culture nonetheless. (And I doubt many of these Authors United authors would make that cut.)
I also agree books are special. They are. I love to read and I love them. I have rooms full of them and I will often lovingly caress my favorite titles.
But you know what is even more special? My freedom to determine what is special to me. Not authors telling me how special their work is.
Also, my freedom to determine how much I am willing to spend on the work (no I don’t owe you a living) and my freedom to voice my opinions (yes, I think books are special, but this particular one?… not so much).
And frankly, if I really want to buy your special creation, Amazon offering or not offering it will not matter. I will find it somewhere else. Cuz, a good competitive market is also very special.
And you know what else I think is special? My stand mixer. That thing is pretty damned boss!
I do think of books as rather special, as consumer goods go. Books, to me, represent ideas, which is something I can’t completely separate if I hear about someone doing certain things to them. Would anyone be up in arms over someone breaking up a toaster for an art project or trying to get a type of toaster pulled off store shelves because they thought it was dangerous? Probably not. Do that to a book and, at least for me, there’s a visceral reaction that this is wrong.
That said, in my life, I’d guess my immediate family has owned less than a half dozen toasters. I own more than a thousand books. From the viewpoint of just buying them, they’re really less of an investment than the $20 toaster.
So, according to AU, a book is more important than a painting, a piece of music or a chocolate eclair, and its creator must be treated differently and more gently than in any other laborer in the fields of Art.
Bah.
A facility with words does not guarantee any sense behind them. I was really surprised by some of the names on that letter. Their books seem to display more intelligence than attaching their names and reputations to such a bogus piece of logic demonstrates, but now I wonder…
Great post, Robin!
The narcissism and elitism implicit- no, explicit- in the argument that books are special and should be exempt from any and all market forces is so embarrassing.
I guess I don’t think books are special, but I think reading is special. It’s kind of a fine distinction, but a book is just a thing. But the act of reading gives it life. And so if you sell nothing, with no distribution and you have a five manuscripts under your bed that are all as special as To Kill a Mockingbird – you’ve got special books, but no readers, so there’s nothing there. No one else read it.
So Authors’ United is right in one sense that there is a specialness to the whole transaction, but they’re putting it at the wrong point … the magic accrues at the point of the reader, at the very end of the transaction chain, when the reading is done and the reader relates to the book. It’s not, in my opinion, at the point of the writing or the selling.
I’m getting amazing emails from readers of my upcoming novella, and it blows me away. But the special part wasn’t the writing – that was private – and it wasn’t any of the way that the story got into readers’ hands … it really confirms for me that the part that makes a book special is the readers’ experience.
While I think Amazon is pretty cheesy for basically completely manipulating the readers’ ability to have that experience – they’re dictating the experiences readers can and cannot have, which I don’t like – but likewise I also think AU is missing the point. Reading is being limited by this dispute, and reading is special. Not actually books. Books themselves aren’t terribly special. (A protectable commercial and artistic endeavor worthy of being paid for, yes, but different in their nature from chocolate? No. Not until the reader has the experience.)
Eh, I think where people get stuck with this is that yes, individual books are not fungible – every one a special snowflake/piece of art yada yada. But books in the aggregate are fungible, given a large enough marketplace. Frex, I might want to read the latest Nalini Singh*. But oh noes, publisher restrictions means I can’t in this country. Once upon a time I’d have to live with that because I (and other readers like me) didn’t have access to alternatives – we were a captive market. Like it or not, Amazon and other e-tailers make it possible for me to find a close enough substitute – an Ilona Andrews or Meljean Brooks perhaps or a Faith Hunter – that my desire for kick ass female protagonist urban fantasy can be temporarily be sated.
For Amazon et al, as a reseller, books are fungible, and increasingly so, for the consumer. All the kicking and screaming in the world is not going to recreate that market scarcity. I decide, for myself, to my own tastes, which books are special now.
*N.B. Author names chosen semi randomly by genre – I’m not taking a dig at any particular author/publisher.
Stories are important.
Stories can tell us where we’ve been and where we are going. Stories show us the best of us and the worst of us. Stories explain the world around to us.
I love stories. Tell me a story and you have my attention. I love to read stories. I love to watch stories whether they be on TV or at the movie theatre. Songs that tell a story are often hits.
Books as a consumer good are a vehicle to get me a story. I think authors get confused between readers and buyers. Yes, they need people to buy their books to make a living. But what they need is readers in order to acquire buyers. Readers are the ones who are going to tell their friends and strangers about the amazing story they just read.
As a society we tend to put our creative people on a pedestal, whether they are authors, painters, actors, etc. Unfortunately, publishing a book is not as “special” as it once was. With today’s technology, anyone can publish their book–it doesn’t even need to be legibly any more.
This is all about power. Unfortunately, some of authors forget that the real power is not them, not their publisher, not their book store. It is the reader. Are authors writing for themselves? Perhaps, but stories and ideas have no meaning unless they are shared.
Ultimately, publishing is a consumer-driven market. I wouldn’t advise alienating your audience.
@sandyl: Not only do we put our artists on pedestals, but we form one-sided involvements with them. What could be more intimate than the dialogs in our minds as we read a beloved book or delight in a passage of music. I think that’s what causes some fans’ zealous actions as street agents and defenders of their idols, particularly if the other relationships in their lives are less fulfilling.
Marketing art exploits that admiration and affection and can become dangerously seductive to the artists. It must be very easy to lose touch.
Most of what AU said was pure bunkum. Of course books can be written more cheaply. Look at all the prolific authors who started out at Harlequin. Janet Daily, Nora Roberts. They figured out how to write fast, because that’s the only way to make money at HQN. The world is full of jobs that require a certain speed. If you work at McDs and it takes you 15 minutes to put together a Big Mac, you get fired. You don’t get to say, “this burger is the creation a person whose living depends on his or her having a job at McDonald’s.”
Second, Amazon makes it easier for people to publish books, meaning to find readers, writers aren’t hindered by traditional publishing gatekeepers. Whether this is good or bad, is up to the readers to decide, not the trad-pubbed writers.
I’m always dubious that commentators like AU understand economics. I buy books experimentally at $1 to $2. I’ve bought a number of books that I wouldn’t have bought or read at a higher price. I’m sure that lower prices sell a lot more books.
Actually, books are special because they’re one of the most important ways that freedom of speech expresses itself. Two centuries ago governments regulated what was said by licensing books for sale. It wasn’t Orwell’s 1984. You could write what you wanted. The troubles came when you wanted to sell it.
That’s why messing with the marketing and sales does matter. An Amazon that openly restricts sales to bully a publisher is an Amazon that’ll find covert ways to limit the sale of some books to elect Candidate A rather than Candidate B. In that scenario, Candidate A has secretly promised not to do an anti-trust investigation of Amazon’s business practices.
Fussing about “agency pricing” as a great evil is particularly silly. Virtually everything else digital—music, video, and apps—are sold via agency pricing, even on Amazon. The creator sets the price and gets a fixed percentage. For digital, it makes perfect sense.
What’s being forgotten is that agency pricing of ebooks had a specific purpose. Amazon owned 90% of the ebook market and was selling popular ebooks well below cost to prevent any competitor from gaining a foothold in the market. That’s when Apple with its new iPad stepped in as the only viable major competitor. Agency pricing kept Amazon from destroying its competitor. And it has worked. Amazon’s share of the ebook market is now around 70%. Agency pricing means a more competitive market.
That’s why the DOJ went after agency pricing and did so after meeting with a Seattle law firm located a mere ten-minute walk away from Amazon’s corporate headquarters. You don’t think there is a connection there? And FYI, that law firm’s location is unusual. Most Seattle law firms are located downtown near the courts and not in Amazon-dominated South Lake Union.
What I’ve learned from all this is that writing as a profession is inflicted with many bitter, angry people—people who’re apparently unhappy their their artistic genius hasn’t be recognized by large publishers and that other writers get rich while they don’t. That’s why they rant and rave about the big publishers. It’s why they hate Authors United. Pitiful.
Even more pitiful are those who have no business sense. They can’t seem to think their way out of a wet paper sack in a hurricane.
Amazon already pays the lowest rates in ebook retailing. For ebooks priced outside the $2.99 to $9.99 that’s 35%—half what Apple pays and only 10% better than publishers who do a heck of a lot more for an author than Amazon.
Amazon has also leaked enough in various ways to reveal that it believes that the top-end royalties for authors should be in the 50% range. In fact, that’s precisely what it intends to pay authors in its new, crowd-sourced publishing arm. And keep in mind that that’s probably only if an author gives Amazon a five-year-exclusive.
These are your options:
1. Oppose Amazon and have a market where authors get 70% of retail, even while selling from a host of retailers. The price of cloud-based services is dropping rapidly, so I wouldn’t be surprised if a competitive market soon meant that creators get 80% of retail.
2. Support Amazon and face a future in which you get 50% of retail if you give Amazon the exclusive right to sell your ebook, but only 25-40% if you insist on selling elsewhere. And those numbers will never change because Amazon has no significant competition. As an author, you dance to Amazon’s tune or you go hungry.
Long term, those are your choices.
As a reader, I’m no great fan of some of these mega-authors. But I’ve got enough sense to know that they know the business side of writing far better than I. Only a fool wouldn’t listen to them.
I believe Apple wanted Agency pricing because Apple wanted 30% for themselves, not the authors
@Michael W. Perry: As a reader I have a 3rd option: support Amazon because they care about me as a consumer and they get me books for prices that I appreciate.
It is not my job to ensure that someone is able to make a living doing what they want to do. My job is to legally obtain my reading materials. Full stop. My job is to legally obtain my reading materials. And price point is a major factor. Will I sub out one book that is too expensive for another? Hell yes! Did agency pricing cause me to buy less traditionally published authors? Hell yes! I completely boycotted all Agency6 books the entire time until they got busted buy the DOJ.
Authors can think they are special snowflakes if they want. What they will find is that the readers will find new authors who’s heads aren’t up their asses.
I don’t agree with the whole “specialness” of books, because that quality is incredibly subjective. I agree that it is the reader who assigns quality because books must have an audience to engage with in order to have value. What supports the author and the creation of books is the audience who, buys, reads, recommends, and discusses the books.
However, as a reader and a consumer, I have significant problems with Amazon and their service. I do not own any e-reader device so if I want to read something that only exists in an e-format, I need to read it on my laptop. Amazon’s market practices have limited my access to books by restricting the formats they are available in. Also, service on recent book orders from Amazon has been incredibly disappointing.
Add to this Michael W. Perry’s comments above about Amazon’s pricing practices, and I stopped shopping at Amazon months ago.
Puts popcorn in microwave….
I’m not convinced at all by the freedom of speech argument. If what you are most concerned about is being able to communicate an idea well, hello internet! Or, you know, any one of the many other mainstream media outlets today. 200 years ago, books weren’t the only way to communicate with the masses, but I agree they were (one of) the most significant. Today, there are a lot of other options, which means that books aren’t as special as perhaps they once were.
It also means that a dispute between a publisher and a distributor of books (and only one publisher and one distributor at this point), really does have minimal impact on freedom of speech. People can still buy Hachette books at other outlets. And actually they can still buy them on Amazon, they just can’t pre-order them. I don’t see how that impacts anyone’s freedom of speech at all.
@Michael W. Perry: Actually if you’re Hachette your main options are
1) Negotiate a contract with Amazon or
2) Don’t negotiate a contract with Amazon.
I am surprised that Authors United and their supporters aren’t more concerned about putting pressure on Hachette who, as a publisher, are supposed to act in the interests of their authors.
@Michael W. Perry: So by your logic, then, the New York Times must publish any editorial I choose to write? And NBC should give me half an hour in prime time to spout off? Hachette must publish any book I write? Last time I checked, the First Amendment did not guarantee me a right to have my ideas published or sold by the business of my choice.
@Michael W. Perry: If Authors United wanted to make a sensible argument it would be this:
1) Amazon is a huge corporation
2) Increased competition is good for readers
3) We are standing our ground today because its good for readers’ economically.
Readers do care about authors but all people are self serving. They care about themselves first. AU and those in the Hachette basket should be talking about how their actions affect readers adversely or beneficially, not about how authors should be treated in various fashions because in all of these arguments, readers are the ones who are out money.
It’s true that a competitive environment helps authors. Self publishing viability has helped authors gain certain leverage against traditional publishers. A healthy and vibrant competitor to Amazon will result in better consumer efficiencies. But talking about the financial gains of an author due to a healthy publishing environment doesn’t increase the “specialness” of books. If anything, it props up Robin’s argument that books in commerce are merely another form of widget.
Hachette and other big publishers occupy a privileged position. Few self-published authors’ works are ever accepted for review by widely read critics. They don’t have distribution channels that compete for best-seller lists. Seems to me that Amazon has been of an equalizer in authors’ quest to be heard. A paradigm destroyer, to be sure, but not a suppressor of expression. Amazon has effectively shifted the balance of power, and no one in the business of making money likes to see that happen. But the anti-free speech claim is specious.
I agree strongly that books are different from other consumer products, but not that the way they are sold is. Yes, AU expressed it badly with their “outsourcing” comment, but the fact is that each book is different from each other book. A book by one author cannot simply be swapped out with a book by another the way a generic bandage can replace a brand-name Band-Aid. Two thrillers are not the same. Two romances are not the same. If I want a book by one of my favorite authors, say Jill Shalvis who writes contemporary romance, even a book by another of my favorite authors in the same genre, say Molly O’Keefe, will not do.
A book is far more an experience than a product. Like a fancy dinner out. Books happen to be sold at the same outlets that sell toasters and refrigerators, but they are not the same as toasters and refrigerators.
I’m not invested in declaring which individual books are “good” or “not good.” To me, that’s a completely different argument. I couldn’t read 50 Shades, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t have a major effect on the market. Was it “good”? That depends on your definition of a “good book.” If that definition is simply “one that satisfies something inside the reader,” then each reader will define what is “good,” and that works just fine for me.
But I am a picky reader, just as I am a picky eater, and I am far more wary of a monopsony destroying my ability to get what *I* enjoy, what has an impact on *me* than in figuring out what makes something “good” to the world at large.
@Amanda:
I have to disagree with you here. I am not an Amazon ebook reader – I own a different (epub) device. I buy my ebooks from multiple vendors and I have had very, very little problems finding everything I was looking for at competitive prices. What I have found is that – in most of the very few cases where I could not locate a book at a store other than Amazon – it was the AUTHOR who decided to put their books in all retailers in order to [try to] get more money from Amazon sales. It is not a requirement for authors do so, however.
* I’ve been tracking all my purchases and have only had this problem once in the last 10 months.
I am a great believer in patronage. I lived in France for a while and while I was there (sorry for the personal history, but it’s relevant) I dated an actor. So I got to learn a lot about theater in France, from the bottom up.
Paris has some of the best theater in the world. Vibrant, plentiful, interesting. And the government encourages this in two primary ways: (1) They give away a lot of free seats to young people, encouraging them to develop a taste for theater that lasts a lifetime (2) They subsidize actors.
And the thing I found most revelatory about this subsidizing actors program was that it had nothing to do with quality. Any actor who logged a certain number of paid performance hours qualified to receive compensation for an additional number of unpaid performance hours.
What really jazzed me up about this was the way that it played out. There is *so much* bad theater in France. Just oodles and oodles of bad theater. Tons of actors who do free productions of Beckett or Moliere to get those government dollars.
It’s the profusion of bad theater that makes the successes possible. The actors who have venues in which to hone their craft. The bizarre, experimental productions that are put on…and turn out to be amazing.
I really believe in patronage. I really believe in supporting the arts–indiscriminately, promiscuously. But this has nothing to do with the free market at all. How could it? Why would the free market support oodles of terrible art?
The thing that strikes me as MOST wrong-headed about this conflict is that it treats Amazon like the modern-day equivalent of a public square. Like we used to feel about malls, which were also not public. It’s sort of tragic. Like somehow Amazon has become our town hall and we should all be able to holler and debate until we’re hoarse, and then take a vote.
I wish these arguments would focus on ACTUAL public space, where all these diverse interests have a leg to stand on, and they had a chance of taking some action that would ACTUALLY promote the specialness of books.
@Laura K. Curtis:
I feel like you conflated two different things here: substituting books and substituting favorite authors – and I think that they are a little different. If I’m in the mood to read a book with a kick-ass heroine, YES one book CAN be swapped out for another. There’s tons and tons of books with kick-ass heroines. A trope is a trope is a trope. As long as the book is well written and I’m only interested in a “mood” or a character type. In fact, I’m doing a trial of Scribd right now and I’ve done nothing BUT swap out books based on tropes.
I don’t feel that I can swap out a favorite author in exchange for any other author – I’ve created some kind of attachment to that individual style and/or voice. So I won’t be satisfied with Mercedes Lackey if I want to read Ilona Andrews…but I surely will swap Contemp Romance #1 for Contemp Romance #6. That difference is what makes me a FAN of Ilona Andrews, not just a reader of her books.
@MrsJoseph –
I disagree, but I’ve already said I am a picky reader. I am a heavy reader and I subscribed to a number of daily newsletters that sent out cheap/free ebook emails in an attempt to make my habit less expensive. To date, I have not finished a single one of the books I’ve downloaded. Complete failure. I cannot substitute one contemporary for another, even if you go “what I want is a romance with a big family…” Nope. Doesn’t work for me.
I also subscribed to Scribd. But so far, aside from finding older books by authors I’ve already read and liked, I haven’t found it worth my while.
When you say contemporary #1 vs contemporary #6, it makes me think you’re referring to categories. I don’t read at that length, but I can see how it might be the case that if you did read a lot of category romance, you’d be okay with swapping out because category romance is all about tropes.
I read two major subgenres of romance: contemporary romance and romantic suspense. I also read thrillers and cozy mysteries. In none of those would I consider any two books the same…for ME. I am not discounting that other people might find all cozies interchangeable, simply saying that I do not. Therefore, it’s not conflating books and authors for me.
@SAO: “Most of what AU said was pure bunkum. Of course books can be written more cheaply. Look at all the prolific authors who started out at Harlequin. Janet Daily, Nora Roberts. They figured out how to write fast, because that’s the only way to make money at HQN.”
Yes, I can’t get over the absurdity of James Patterson being part of this group when he basically subcontracts out his novels to other, lower-paid writers. He’s running an assembly line at this point. How special is that?
Michael Perry nailed it times ten. Whether you regard books as special oksor just another consumer item, I wish people could understand that this argument isn’t about how the publishers want to keep prices high. IT’s about Amazon carving out more profits from publishers (big AND small; I assure you,) and getting more readers to shop only at Amazon. Most Big 5 and small press books are already priced below Amazon’s 9.99 artificial threshold.
Amazon is not just a bookseller or distributor; Amazon is also now also a major book publisher. Our competitor. Always remember that. It’s speaking for itself on several different levels. If two grocery store chains were fighting for turf in a nasty public relations battle, you wouldn’t assume that either of them are telling the truth about the other.
The second largest publisher at Amazon is Amazon, second only to the Penguin Group. The rest of us not only compete with Amazon’s many imprints, we pay to support them. Typically, a publisher gives Amazon around 50 percent of the retail price of every book we sell through the company, plus other “fees.”e
We watch as so many of Amazon’s reader promotions feature only Amazon books. The bestseller rankings mysteriously favor Amazon’s books over ours, even over bestsellers that rule all the major lists everywhere else. We’re getting less for our commitment to Amazon but not paying less for it.
Amazon is also competing with us via the inexpensive books it gobbles up out of its self-publishing program and adds to its new subscription service, which we can’t participate in except by invitation. There’ll be plenty of books priced by the pound for readers in that arena, and plenty of hopeful authors who believe it’s worth it to sign away their rights for a chance at stardom via the latest dazzling Crowdsource program or other. Indie authors have plenty to worry about in an Amazon-dominated future.
You only care about your low book prices? You think it’s greedy publishers and authors who stand in your way? We can only go so low on the wholesale price we charge and still pay our bills. But Amazon can drop to rock bottom in its pricing to you. How? By losing money. The ONLY way Amazon gives you those dirt-cheap prices on bestsellers is by eating the losses. Booksellers and publishers can’t compete with those tactics. Books are our only source of income, whereas books are just a sliver of Amazon’s overall empire–about $5 billion out of $100 billion annually.
Jeff Bezos has said on the record that he chose books as his platform when he started the company because the publishing world had all the right weak points for “disruption.” He came from the world of hedge fund investors. Books are definitely just a widget to him, a means to bring in your money and your priceless consumer data.
There’s a saying: If you’re getting something for free, (or cheap,) then you’re not the customer, you’re the product. Think about that every time you assume that a company has your best interests at heart while it’s weakening all your other choices and whispering, “I’ll take care of you. You only need me.”
@Deborah Smith: Did you even read the blog post? I’ll remind you of Janet’s questions at the end:
How does Michael’s comment, or yours for that matter, address any of these questions?
Dear Author is primarily a site for readers, not authors. So when you say things like ‘Amazon is our competitor’, it sounds pretty stupid. Amazon is not the readers’ competition.
@ Erin Satie
“They give away a lot of free seats to young people, encouraging them to develop a taste for theater that lasts a lifetime”
This is one of my big arguments why all authors should love libraries (and I know most of them do): libraries keep people reading during the lean times, so they’re still reading when they have the money to buy books.
These authors are talking about the business of publishing, NOT themselves or their books, and attacking them without understanding their arguments is less than productive.
They say that publishing is special because a publisher isn’t really a manufacturer of goods like furniture or Oreo cookies. As an example of this, they talk about the creators of the works. So does their reasoning make sense?
Can publishing cut its prices the same way a manufacturer does by creating works by authors in Third World country? Anyone who has read an instruction manual for a piece of furniture or TV that was written by someone outside the US would say no. Most American authors already are so poorly paid that cutting the profits even more would put most out of the business.
Can anyone but a professional writer create novels? All you have to do is read some of books that are self-published, ( I said some, NOT all,) and you’d probably say rarely.
Does a published book need in-house American editors, etc.? Again, using those self-pubbed books that haven’t seen an editor, professional formatter, or cover artist, and most of us would say yes.
The actual printing and production are often done out of the US, and the paper has gotten so cheap that it begins to disintegrate within a few months so I’d say that part of the process is too cheap already.
Now, let’s talk price. A bit of history. American publishing until the conglomerates started gobbling up every publisher in the country was run mainly by the Ivy League wealthy like the Simons. They believed that books were so important to the country and its people that they kept the prices artificially low. The profit margin was under 5% and that was okay.
Then the conglomerates bought everyone out, and things changed drastically, but one thing that didn’t was the price of books which remained artificially low although the cost of production, etc., continued to rise. Most of these costs were foisted on the authors in the form of poorer royalties and advances.
The system of selling books through distributors and bookstores proved impossible to change to more profit because of the hidebound traditionalists in all areas as well as the financially-favored things like returns helped bolster bookstore bottom lines.
Now, let’s compare that with a manufactured item. A piece of furniture, for example, has a 500% to 1000% profit margin which allows huge discounts with plenty of profit for everyone. Book publishing’s profit margin in 3% to 7% according to recent figures I’ve seen so they really can’t go any lower in price and concessions to distributors like Amazon without going out of business.
So is publishing special? In the sense that it isn’t a manufacturer like all of other goods producers, yes, it is.
Should it be given some slack, at least by readers who want publishing to remain viable? I think yes, but, then I love books.
I wish this site had ‘like’ buttons. I would so ‘like’ Ros’ last remark.
@Marilynn Byerly: First, you can’t compare the furniture industry or any other type of industry with the publishing industry. It’s a false equivalence fallacy. Each industry has their own benchmark and customs. A thin profit margin does not endow specialness. It’s completely normal for some industries to have thin profit margin, in which case they commonly make up it by selling volumes.
Second, the attention span of the Internet may be short but it ain’t forgetful. The publishing industry, or to be specific, the Big 5 tried arguing their specialness in their ***price-fixing*** lawsuit. http://www.courtneymilan.com/ramblings/2012/07/24/your-unspecial-antitrust-snowflake/ Spoiler alert: They lost. Nobody bought their BS, and we certainly don’t buy it now in this Hachette vs. Amazon dispute. Not to mention the hypocrisy. I certainly didn’t hear a fuss from these authors when Barnes & Nobles boycott Amazon-published books: http://the-digital-reader.com/2012/01/31/bn-throws-down-the-shipping-crate-they-wont-stock-books-from-amazon/ And I still don’t considering how the B&N’s boycott is on-going last time I checked (feel free to correct me on this front if you have any update).
Third, yes, everyone wants the publishing industry to be viable. We love books, too. But the Big 5 does not equal to the entire publishing industry. BTW, you forgot about the small press. Please take the “too big to fail” ideology out the door.
I’ve written too many work-for-hire educational books to think that every book is a special snowflake. I write to the best of my ability, of course, but a flat fee buys a certain number of hours of work, or I can’t make a living. Plus, I’m often restricted by the publisher’s guidelines. And I’ve read too many amazing manuscripts that never found a traditional publisher to think that good work will always be found and supported. This is a business like any other, and being able to write full-time doesn’t make me special, it makes me incredibly lucky.
Also, Authors United is silly. Many authors think so.
@Expy: Marilynn Byerly’s post overlooked the role of digital publishing as well, which is completely unencumbered with expenses related to printing, shipping and remaindering paper books. Plus, print on demand has yet to come fully into its own. Ultimately the whole publishing industry has to reinvent itself in the face of our higher tech world. Publishing megaliths cannot be successful if they fail to adapt.
@Expy Of course I can compare the furniture industry and the book industry since the whole point of the article is that publishing isn’t “special,” it’s just another manufacturing business. You can’t have the argument work both ways.
The Big 5’s choice about pricing was a BUSINESS decision, just like Amazon’s. The government decided that it was illegal, but publishing has the same right to make BUSINESS decisions as Amazon.
And small press wasn’t mentioned in my comments, but I’ll be happy to talk about it since I’ve had a number of my book published by small press.
I am not for Amazon or the Big Five who both stomp on authors with equal zeal so don’t tie me to either side, but I am not one to put up with nonsense that demonizes authors because of who publishes them.
@Marilynn Byerly
The DOJ came down on the publishers for colluding and colluding to keep prices high. Publishers were free to make any business decisions they wanted, as long as they made them independently.
Publishers offer a bundle of services. They read the slush pile and weed out clunkers, providing a stamp of quality; they do copy and content editing; they format and they print. These services don’t have to be bundled together and there are cheaper options.
First, there may be a market for super-cheap, mediocre books, just as the market for cheap, plastic chairs that break after a few years coexists with firms that compete on quality. Just as chair buyers know the difference, so do most readers.
Second, sites like Dear Author and Goodreads do vetting. Authors can hire firms to do editing and formatting.
The problem with arguments like you and AU is making is to look at the market as static. We can have Amazon or we can have the traditional model. However, in a period of disruption new models emerge, some of them successful, some not. It’s not uncommon for the firms successful in the old model to fight the new. That’s what I see the Amazon-AU battle about.
As long as authors see the market as static, too, they won’t be advocating for their interests in a new paradigm and will end up getting stuck with what the tech giants and publishers come up with as they duke it out.
But the argument that I should pay more money because some group privileged in the current system would like to keep their income stream is a loser.
So many wonderful, thought – provoking comments.
My favorite is this not from @MrsJoseph: “It is not my job to ensure that someone is able to make a living doing what they want to do. My job is to legally obtain my reading materials. Full stop.”
I’m tired of being told by authors that putting them on lists (which holds little weight for me) is the readers’ responsibility. I just want to read a good book, okay.
@SAO I’m not an apologist for Authors United or the Big 5 and their less than legal behavior any more than I am rooting for Amazon in this fight, but anyone, author or reader, who thinks Amazon is truly on their side doesn’t know their Amazon history.
As I said, those in big publishing including some of its authors are hidebound traditionalists, and change must be forced upon them, but that doesn’t make them anyone’s enemies but themselves.
The one real thing that readers should know about all the chaos in publishing including this fight and struggle with piracy, etc., is that the world of books and publishing is an ecology, and for that ecology to be fruitful, it must be watered with money from the readers to the writers. (Despite some folks’ claims, writers do need to be paid for what they do, or they find better ways to spend their time than writing.)
If the distributors like Amazon and the publishers siphon away too much of that money or too many readers refuse to pay for books, the writers fail and the whole system fails. That would be a very sad thing.
@Marilynn Byerly: What you don’t seem to get is that it is not the reader’s job to be concerned about the BUSINESS of publishing. The system will not fail and it has not failed – the system is being changed and I’m all for it.
@Marilynn Byerly: Yes, it’s fair to say that the world of books is an ecology, or at least an organic system. However, you seem to be saying that the way it has been working has been good because some writers have been fruitful. What many of us are replying is that the distribution of power has not been favorable to either readers or many writers whose works were not selected for promotion. As the number of small publishers declined, so did opportunities for many authors to break through. What’s going on now is turning the existing situation, reminiscent of Hollywood’s old contract star system, on its head. Naturally many of the old publishing system’s beneficiaries are resisting change. But like Norma Desmond, those who rely on the power of superstar-dom are unlikely to thrive.
The new world of publishing is a good thing for me as a reader. There’s a wider diversity of authors to choose from. Books are less expensive and thanks to new technology, more rewarding to read. In marked contrast to what’s happening elsewhere in our world, a way has been found around the concentration of power through corporate mergers and acquisitions. For authors who would have been left out in the cold by the old system, today’s publishing opportunities are a welcome change.
@MrsJoseph If you, as a reader, read this article and continue to read the comments, you obviously do care about the BUSINESS of publishing. No one here is forcing you or any other reader to have anything to do with this discussion.
I clicked your link and noticed that you are supporting the Ellora’s Cave authors and “Dear Reader” in their fight against a failing publisher so, obviously, you do care.
As I said earlier, I love books, I read dozens of books a year, and I want the ecology to flourish to produce more books for me to read. That means I care about what is happening to writers and publishing well beyond the fact that I’ve been a publishing news junkie, a former writer, and writing teacher for many years.
I imagine many other readers do care, too.
@Marilynn Byerly: If there was any evidence whatsoever that the number of books being published is declining, or that the number of people writing books is declining, your argument might hold more weight. I don’t see either of those things happening.
@Mzcue As an ebook pioneer who lured readers and librarians into the digital age and helped create this new golden age of reading, I say thank you for the comments about more books.
Those of us who dipped our toes into the digital waters of the late Nineties and early Naughts did so because the conglomerates were focused on books for the widest number of readers while shutting down lines like the small Regencies and the paranormals whose paying readership was fiercely loyal but too few to matter to their grand schemes of bottom lines. We also saw that the distribution channels including Ingram and the book chains ignoring that same paying but small readership.
The channel to readers had become a tiny funnel where those of us with differing reading tastes couldn’t find books, and a majority of the profit was in the hands of the distributors and the big publishers.
Ebooks were our answer, and readers came, excrutiatingly slowly, but they came.
Unfortunately, they chose one-stop shopping which once again put control back into the hands of a few distribution channels which began to syphon away a majority of the profit and forced prices to rise so the epublishers and authors could make some profit.
Fast forward about ten years, and Amazon is now in the position of controlling a huge portion of readership and the profit so we are financially back into the same position we were when all this mess started, only with more books.
Everything you said, Janet/Robin, plus what Ros said, particularly this:
Here my line lies with Kaetrin’s: no, I don’t owe any writer anything more than the fair market price of the book, if I’m purchasing a copy, or taxes if I’m borrowing it from the library, with very, very few exceptions, such as what Hestia says here:
There is some state support for some marginal areas of writing–that’s what grants and scholarships are for, after all. Would a larger endowment to these endeavors be a good thing, for all of us? Certainly–but most, if not all of the authors purportedly signing that letter have nothing to do with those marginal areas of writing.
I really like the distinction that Anna Richland makes upthread, that is reading that is special, but even that is subject to each reader’s relationship with any given book.
The freedom of speech argument is spurious–authors, and people in general, are free to speak their minds, but nowhere does the First Amendment says that a corporation is obligated to give them a preferential platform. (Or, what Liz Mc2 says)
Finally, while I’m trying to cling to denial (i.e., that most authors who are listed as signatories didn’t actually read the version that was published), I am angry that none of them have denounced the gross insults dealt to writers who are not American–and to anyone who does menial tasks for a living, never mind how many of us poor peons are avid readers who spend more than we probably should buying books.
Aslo, for Marilynn Byerly: I do not think that amazon is on my side anymore that I think Walmart is. I know both are business, looking out for themselves–just as publishers are, just as writers are, and just as I, reader, am.
@Marilynn Byerly: I care about Ellora’s Cave suing a blogger. That does not mean I care about a writer not making the amount of money they think they should.
I’m also reading a reader-focused blog that is discussing a mass author signed letter that implies readers should pay more money for them to live happier. That has everything to do with me as a reader while I can still not care about the author side of the business of publishing.
I don’t make the money I think I should make…somebody should cue the violins. My industry was horribly impacted by globalization: lots of companies went out of business. The companies left are leaner, faster and more in tune with any changes in the industry. So…sorry that I don’t get misty eyed when authors want to be special snowflakes and get upset about the disruptions of technology. It’s life, it’s business, it happens. I’m getting tired of all the whining and complaints. If your job isn’t paying the bills, it’s time for a new job.
My mom taught me a life lesson when I was a very little girl that I think is applicable: Life isn’t fair.
@Ros, I didn’t say that the number of books is declining. In fact, we are in a tsunami of books, beyond anything ever seen in history.
The problem is that a vast majority of those books vanish like so much dross from lack of readers, and many of the truly good authors are leaving the business.
As I’ve said, I’ve been in the business for a lot of years, and I’ve known hundred of writers, many of them quite good, and a vast majority have left or been forced out of the business for varying reasons. One big reason is that a writing career usually doesn’t pay enough to justify the soul-sucking time and work required.
Now, not only do writers have to produce much more frequently, they also have do an incredible amount of marketing, promotion, and business stuff. The good writers must make themselves noticed in that tsunami. Burnout is inevitable, sadly.
So, yes, more books, but, no, not enough good books.
@Marilynn Byerly: “but anyone, author or reader, who thinks Amazon is truly on their side doesn’t know their Amazon history.” I absolutely agree, which is why I’m not an Amazon fan. I don’t think anyone here on DearAuthor is an Amazon fan. Customers, yes, but fans? I doubt it. Nothing in this blog above said anything about being on Amazon side. Disagreeing with Authors United and others does not automatically equal to being on Amazon’s side.
“As I said, those in big publishing including some of its authors are hidebound traditionalists, and change must be forced upon them, but that doesn’t make them anyone’s enemies but themselves.” Until they price-fixed, which made them enemies of all readers. Hidebound traditionalists, indeed.
@MrsJoseph: I love the application to publishing of your last thought: Life isn’t fair. I’d go a step further in relation to this discussion and extend it: Life isn’t fair, but life is better when we make it fairer for more people.
@MrsJoseph “Implied,” that’s the word we should focus on. These authors are stating their case against Amazon, not saying they deserve to be paid more because they are “special.”
Authors should be paid, though. That’s what makes the business work. No money, no words.
Here’s something else your mom probably said, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
@Marilynn Byerly: If writers aren’t paid, they should take it up with their publishers–see Ellora’s Cave most recent brouhaha–or with their distributors, if self published.
It’s not the consumer’s job to make sure writers are paid what they think they deserve, anymore that I whine to any of the bestselling (mucho dinero) writers in that list about the fact that I’m not paid what I’m worth at my job.
@Marilynn Byerly:
That’s never been true, though. Not for more than a tiny proportion of writers. It’s how the market works.
@Marilynn Byerly: Regarding art and the free lunch: I think art is one area that a free market system fails. I envy the support for artists in many European countries, and I think that the whole world benefits from their system.
At first I thought that cable TV was going to be the salvation of performing arts because it made unique material available to niche audiences. Unfortunately the acquisition of the small providers by the giants is relentlessly suppressing much of what was unique and replacing it with what is mediocre, cheap to air and appealing to advertisers. Fortunately for us readers, literature’s delivery system is not so easily subsumed.
Depends on what you mean by a huge portion. I went to a panel of very successful self-published authors at RT this past May, and they emphasized that Amazon is no more than 60% of their income, and to ALWAYS diversify.
If authors are choosing to publish exclusively through Amazon, they’re going to lose money. Many, many, many people either do not, or cannot, shop at Amazon.
Also, as someone else said above, disagreeing with AU does not mean supporting everything Amazon does. I’m continually baffled that, every time Amazon comes up in discussion threads, even tangentially, Amazon-hatred takes over the conversation. I don’t approve of a lot of their practices, and I don’t shop there, but solution to the problem of market dominance is to increase competition, not shut down the successful vendors.
Something that Amazon does very, very right is they make it easy for people to buy from them. The company I work for puts *so many* barriers between us and our customers’ money, I’m amazed we’re still in business.
Maybe what AU needs to be doing is setting up their own marketplace, or setting up some kind of support system or technical support for smaller book vendors, so that they can be easy for customers to use, too.
@Marilynn Byerly: Which is why I legally obtain my reading materials. So, any authors I read are getting paid… I don’t get a free lunch. No one is advocating pirating books… But it is not my job to ensure that authors get paid what they *think* they should in order to work their dream job. My job is to legally obtain my reading materials. Full stop.
What you really mean is “paid well.” Well, hell. We all want to be paid well. Teachers damn sure deserve to be paid well. Why should the desire to be well paid change books from widgets to “special snowflake items that need protection?”
The argument against Amazon is that the poor itty bitty publishers should not be forced to negotiate business like business “cause books are spesul.” And I call bullshit. If you as an author/publisher have a problem with Amazon, you need to take a good long look at your fellow authors, traditional publishers and DRM. THAT [authors, publishers & DRM] is the reason that Amazon is so big.
I don’t even buy ebooks from Amazon – I use a different vendor. What I notice is this: authors like to sign exclusive contracts with Amazon and publishers force DRM. This causes readers to get stuck inside a seller ecosystem unless they work extra hard to keep that from happening. Most readers are not willing to jump through hoops for their pleasure reads.
Publishers refused to remove DRM. Authors decided to sign exclusive contracts. Publishers refused to do direct sales to readers. Authors mostly do not sell direct to readers on their own sites. These actions created a huge company and NOW readers should rush to the rescue now that authors and publishers have to deal with the gorilla they created? Ha!
If your job doesn’t pay the bills, it’s time for a new job.
@Marilynn Byerly:
“Of course I can compare the furniture industry and the book industry since the whole point of the article is that publishing isn’t “special,” it’s just another manufacturing business. You can’t have the argument work both ways.”
Then compare apples to apples, not apples to sofas.
Compare books to CDs.
I must say, I’ve never been one to love a company; they’re all in business for a profit, but when people start bashing Amazon, it almost makes me a fan of Amazon. Why?
When I got my e-reader, the Kindle was the only reasonable choice at the time. So, I’m linked to Amazon. Amazon’s service, selection and prices are great, which is not something I could say about many other bookstores I’ve attempted to use over the years.
The publisher’s e-book policies pushed me to Amazon and it’s convenient for me to stay there.
If authors and publishers want me to shop for books elsewhere, they have to stop whining and take a long hard look at their marketing policies. The special snowflake argument is a loud announcement that they don’t want to change, they want readers to change.
Sorry, that’s never been the way successful businesses work.
@Marilynn Byerly:
“The problem is that a vast majority of those books vanish like so much dross from lack of readers, and many of the truly good authors are leaving the business.”
A lot of those books are dross, and the lack of readers for them is just an example of something that’s not creaming sinking to the bottom.
“One big reason is that a writing career usually doesn’t pay enough to justify the soul-sucking time and work required.”
Most careers are soul-sucking. Most of the pro authors I know have other jobs. Such is life as an author. At this point in time, there’s really no reason for anyone to not know or expect that, entering into it as a career.
“Compare books to CDs.” @txvoodoo The CD market is only part of the money made in music with its multiple formats, multiple variations on outlets (radio, streaming service, etc.), and other ways I can’t think of at the moment. That means the numbers for CD sales, etc., would only be a tiny part of the picture which would really screw up any possibility of comparison.
I live in the furniture capital of the world with family and friends in the furniture industry so I know that market and its numbers. And the book and furniture business are surprisingly similar if you consider a book a product like a sofa.
@MrsJoseph No, I meant paid, not paid well.
To me, the AU letter was about their unhappiness at being used as pawns by Amazon, not their desire to force people to buy their books. Nor about the “implied” specialness. It was so implied I sure as heck didn’t notice it, and I’m a professional wordsmith and ex-literary analyst.
@Marilynn
Actually, the AU argument that Amazon “uses its tremendous power to separate authors from their readership” is an argument that books are widgets. Given that the books are available from other sellers, if Amazon is “separating authors from readership” it’s proof that for those readers, one book is as good as another. One hopes the authors, many of whom are big names, have websites and the good sense to tell readers how to buy their books.
@Marilynn Byerly:
Interesting. Every other commented that got the implication must be not very smart then. But then, not all of us are professional wordsmiths like you.
God, that Authors United thing… they are giving us such a bad name. Should be called Some Authors United by their Publisher to Push Their Agenda, but I guess like Hermione had to find out once, that wouldn’t fit on a pin.
I am a writer, but I was a reader first and still, and as both of those — no, there is nothing special about books. At least not anything that would distinguish them a from CDs, DVDs, or any other commercial creative product.
It’s the content that makes them special, and in that it’s actually the reader her or himself who makes it special. But none of this has anything to do with the way they should or shouldn’t be sold.
I personally don’t like capitalism or multinationals, and it’s weird that I find myself siding with Amazon, but the AU letter was just underhanded and wrong.
The truth is books CAN be produced more cheaply in a way a toaster can’t. We are doing it right now. Producing an ebook is a LOT cheaper than a book. Try toasting your bread with an etoaster, AU, and see how that goes.
And as someone who would like to make a living writing but also is pretty poor right now, I LIKE discounted books. I would never be able to read my 50 books a year if I had to pay over 10$ for each.
But I have to say, that “books are special” argument really cuts both ways. You can’t imagine the number of times I see it as a reason why authors should be happy to be authors as a hobby, and shouldn’t have the right to a living wage… because books are so special.
Really? Why aren’t football players or golfers or musicians or, hell, our lawmakers, policemen and doctors in that position? Surely, it’s so rewarding and special to be saving lives, no?
And here is the thing – it’s not readers who say that. And it’s not authors who try to manipulate readers (well, sad exceptions always exist). It’s big publishers who don’t want to adapt to a changing market and try to manipulate readers and writers, both.
All we can do is not let them :).
It always amazes me how attached people are to the idea that their experience or opinion is the only possible one. We’re all different and have different tastes! A book I thought was sickeningly sweet is someone else’s favorite. I don’t think my opinion of the work is more valid.
I think authors need to take a bigger picture view on this too. Not every reader is going to love your book and that hurts but really it’s natural. I want to tell fellow authors to focus on the people who like your work and don’t worry so much about the people who don’t. They’re entitled to their opinion.
You bring up a great point about the competing interests of the three parties: authors, publishers, and readers. I don’t think it diminishes my love of books and reading to say that they are a product and they serve a need in my life just the way a toaster does. And there are some really beautiful toasters out there.
As an author of course I want to get paid for my work. However, I think it’s my job to write a great book and promote it well. I get paid when readers are delighted with my work, when they’ve got something wonderful that they are happy to have paid a bit of money for. No one needs to be tricked, forced, or harassed into buying my books. If I’ve done my job right, money will come because lots of people will be getting a great experience from my book.