Do Publishers Really Want the Government to Protect Writers?

There are many odd things about the weird media campaign by big publishers against Amazon.  The first was the unreasonable expectation that readers should be outraged that they had to wait a week or two to get a copy of Hachette titles or that they couldn't pre-order Hatchette books on Amazon when they could easily find them elsewhere.  Then there was the strange assumption that the general public should leap to Hatchette's defense in a private business dispute without knowing exactly what was in dispute.  Then there was James Patterson, well known for cranking out marginal thrillers with teams of ghost writers, lamenting that Amazon was going to destroy "literature."  The Salon website weighed it with almost daily anti-Amazon pieces, the oddest of which was an attack on angry self-publishers that ended with a plea for them to support big publishing against Amazon.

But surely the strangest argument in the dispute, and the larger battle between big publishing and Amazon, is the idea that the government should somehow intervene on big publishing's side.  Take this nice little plant in a generic Reuters news feed: "The U.S. government's unwillingness to stop Amazon from using hardball tactics in fights with book publishers has angered book lovers…"  What?  Who?  What book lovers are angered the U.S. government won't intervene?  The book loving public couldn't care less.  But I guess that reporter got his drinks paid for by some Amazon hating publishing executive.

It really shows the desperation of big publishing.  They have to know that this argument doesn't work, but seem to hope the threat will be enough to get Amazon to back down.

It's completely absurd for anyone to think the government should intervene in this business dispute when no one really knows what it's about.  Moreover, the last time the government intervened in the publishing world, it was clearly against the big publishers in the Apple price fixing lawsuit.  Still, proxies for big publishing keep floating this idea out there that government action somehow makes sense, without being able to say exactly what the government is supposed to do.  Yell at Amazon and tell them to do whatever Hachette wants?  More embarrassingly, they hint that they might have to wait for a more "friendly" administration, all but admitting they need a government that can be bought off with bribes to fight for their side.

It should be increasingly clear to those behind this failing spin campaign that they are losing the argument.  Readers, the general public and self-publishers have not been fooled and they aren't going to be.  The debate is shifting rapidly, not only as to why Amazon might not be in the wrong, but why nasty standard practices make big publishing a villain, not a victim.   Along those lines, there is a great piece on the Huffington post by Thomas Hauser, explaining why the government should intervene, but against big publishing. 

THOMAS HAUSER ON PUBLISHER'S UNFAIR CONTRACTS

It seems to me the longer this debate goes on, the more it damages traditional publishers and helps Amazon.  I suggest it's time for the big publishers to advise their minions to move on to another topic and focus on cleaning up their own abusive business practices.

A. G. Riddle's Movie Deal for Sci-Fi Series

The success stories emerging from the world of self-publishing, particularly self-publishing on Amazon, continue unabated.  This despite the best efforts of traditional publishing sock puppets to try to label self-publishers as angry losers with unrealistic dreams who should fall back in line to support the old print establishment.

But the truth is most of the emerging writers in self-publishing aren't angry, they just like writing.  They have no grudge against traditional publishing, they just want to take advantage of new creative opportunities.  More importantly, they are smart people with lots of options, who could do a lot of other things with their lives, but happen to have the right mix of writing talent and business savvy to succeed with this new media platform.

A case in point is A. G. Riddle, a smart young guy who started his first tech company in college and worked for ten years in internet startups.  Only three years ago, he decided to focus his business creatively on writing, not sure if it would end up being a hobby or a profession.  He began a series of sci-fi novels, the Atlantis Gene series.  He sold half a million copies in his first year and the movie rights to the series have just been purchased by CBS Films.

ATLANTIS TRILOGY TO GET MOVIE TREATMENT

Now, there's no guarantee the books will get produced, even though they seem to be a terrific idea.  And there's no guarantee that Riddle's next novels will be as successful as his first three.  But it's a pretty amazing beginning to a writing career.  It's clearly not going to be a hobby for him.

It's also important to understand that before Amazon made self-publishing a viable alternative to traditional publishing, this wasn't a guy who was sitting around in cafes smoking cigarettes and complaining that he got another rejection from an book agent.  Nor was he a mid-list writer who had got burned by traditional publishers and was seeking revenge by self-publishing.  When he started writing, he did it more for fun than to get rich.  Yet, as a person with a wide range of tech business experience, he probably wasn't baffled on how to creative a good looking cover for his book, or unwilling to pay an editor to proof read it.  In interviews, he comes across as a modest nice guy who is just trying to learn his craft.  Exactly the kind of writer that fans can get behind and support.

Nor is he not the only emerging writer finding success in self-publishing.

The proxies for traditional publishing are doing everything they can to distract from these frequent success stories by trying to falsely label self-publishers as writers who failed to make it in the print world, or unemployed drifters who can't get a real job and self-publish because they think its easy money.  The reality is very different.  Self-publishers are people of every possible stripe.  But the successful ones are usually people that could be successful in many industries, but have a love for writing and a desire to be creative.  Increasingly, self-publishers are going to be people who have little background or interest in traditional publishing, because traditional publishing abandoned it's primary focus on supporting writers some time ago.  It is more interested in controlling market share and moving paper around.

The other meme being floated is that all these self-publishers will eventually crawl into the embrace of the big 5 publishing companies who will be able to scoop the cream off the top and maintain their market share.  That seems unlikely, unless the big 5 change their entire business model, particularly their unfriendly writing deals.  Rising writers like Riddle have little incentive to rush to sign over all their rights to be controlled by a poorly managed legacy print industry.

But who knows?  Riddle's website, somewhat incongruously, states that he is "seeking representation."  So far, it doesn't seem like he needs it.

Eve's Hungry Episode Nine: The Jungle Queen

Just published a spanking new episode of Eve's Hungry.  And… it's the best one yet!  Be sure to stay till the very end for another tech celebrity appearance.  Here it is:

EPISODE NINE: THE JUNGLE QUEEN

Well, maybe it's not the best episode, but it's an awfully good one.  And if it isn't the best, it's only because the others are so great too.  Stay tuned!  More to come soon.  It's all building up to a really great finish.

Anne Rice on Self-Publishing

I like this quote by Anne Rice about whether there is a stigma to self-publishing:  "That stigma is finished, over. In the old days, yes, there was that stigma. But nobody believes that now. There are too many successful and acclaimed indie authors; too many indie authors have been invited in by New York houses based on their indie success. No, there is no stigma today."

It's nice to see such a talented and successful established writer who doesn't feel threatened in any way by self-publishing, and who is willing to go on the record saying it's a good thing.

Much more in the full link:

ANNE RICE ON SELF-PUBLISHING

Laugh of the Day

I've been wading through all the Hachette vs. Amazon arguments and when I was checking out another piece on The Passive Voice, I stumbled upon this and got a nice laugh:

You can buy it, and some other funny ones, from this link:

I DESTROYED LITERARY CULTURE

Humor is one of the best ways to cut through bullshit.  And yes, it's bullshit to think that self-publishing is killing "literature."  It's actually quite the opposite.

Future of Ideas: A Must Read for Self-Publishers

Great sci-fi author and self-publishing advocate, Hugh Howey, brought my attention to this wonderful little manifesto by The Passive Voice.  While it generally concerns the Amazon-Hachette fight, and specifically a stupid article in the Atlantic, it's a must read for anyone interested in self-publishing:

The Passive Voice

And if you're not sick of the entire Amazon-Hachette controversy, Hugh does some good explaining of what the debate really is all about:

More Thoughts on Hachette/Amazon

How Long Should Your Self-Published Book Be?

So I'm midway through my first novel (or at least I think I'm midway) and I'm starting to fret about what its proper length should be.  Is it going to end up too short, too long, or just right?  What's the best length for a first novel?  How long should it be?

I know, it should be as long as it needs to be, and no longer.

But like many first time authors, I want to know what the "right" way is.  If only as a guide.  One tip I found very helpful early on was numerous experienced authors (including Stephen King) said you need to write at least a thousand words a day (and work up to two thousand).  I haven't been able to do that, because I have a "real" job that makes it almost impossible to write everyday.  But it is helpful to me when I do find a day or two to do some serious work on my book.  If I can push myself to a thousand words, I feel like I've accomplished something.  So I've become a little obsessed with word count.

While it's taken me longer than I hoped, my unfinished novel Eve's Hungry is now exactly 35,552 words.  Story wise, I think I'm a little more than half way through.  Years ago I read something about novels needing to be a minimum of 100,000 words to be considered by a traditional publisher.  A sci-fi publisher I really respect, Baen Books, says submissions should be between 100,000 and 130,000 words.  (Sci-Fi books tend to run longer than some genres.)  At the rate I'm going, I don't think I'll hit 100,000 words unless I start padding or come up with some other plot twists or subplots.

But I'm not planning to submit Eve's Hungry to a traditional publisher.  I'm going to self-publish.  So I can pretty much do what I want.  On the other hand, I do want it to read like a professional novel.  So should I try to quickly wrap it up and be done with it, or should I stretch it out so it seems more professional?  Worrying about such things is a good way to put off really writing.  Or… maybe if I find the answers, I can hopefully get on with it without second guessing myself every moment.

A quick Google search turned up a few good articles on the subject:

MIKE SHEVDON: WORD COUNT WORRIES

D. ROBERT GRIXTI: WORD COUNT

STEVE TRUELOVE: A WORD ABOUT WORDCOUNT

Basically, anything under 40,000 words is a technically a novella and anything over is a novel.  The "average" novel is said to be 64,000 words.  I'm sure Eve's Hungry will end up over 50,000 words (probably over 64,000), so I'll technically be in the official "novel" category.  The most interesting thing I learned was that Ian Fleming's Casino Royale was 42,000 words and Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is 46,000.  Since Eve's Hungry is kind of a cross between James Bond and Hitchhiker's, that would seem to argue that shorter is better.  If prior success is any indicator.  Plus, both are great fast reads.  Something worth modeling.

Dean Wesley Smith has a great article on the history of novel lengths:

DEAN WESLEY SMITH: BOOK LENGTH

Basically, he states that novels got longer from 1960's on so publishers could charge more for supermarket paperbacks.  Now, between changes in the traditional publishing world and the rise of self-publishing, he predicts novels will get shorter.  And he concludes with: make it however long you want.

So, where does that leave me with Eve's Hungry?  How long should it be?  I guess I'm back to: as long as it needs to be, and no longer.