New Episode of Eve's Hungry: Spoils of War

I just posted a new episode of Eve's Hungry:

Episode Thirteen: Spoils of War

It's getting close to the thrilling conclusion (which I promise is great) and then I'm going to publish the completed work as a novel on Amazon.  The series has been up for several years and its had over 5,000 page views.  Which isn't a heck of a lot by internet standards, but I don't think it's bad given I've done virtually no promotion other than a Twitter feed and my own Facebook page.  Will any of these page views translate into book sales?  I have no idea.  But it's been fun posting and I hope there are some people that are enjoying the series.

The final chapters are all roughed out and will be done soon.  Yes, for a while I wasn't sure if I would finish it, but we're past all that.  So there is still time to get on the train.  If you haven't been following, here's the link for the first episode.  Enjoy!

Eve's Hungry: Episode One: The Sword Dancer

Fear-O-Matic: Keith Gessen Attacks Amazon for Vanity Fair

The Amazon fear mongering continues with a "new" piece of "reporting" in Vanity Fair, "The War of Words" by Keith Gessen.  And as long as the fear mongering continues, you can count on the faithful Amazon Fear-O-Matic to munch it into bite size chunks for easy consumption.

EDITED TO ADD: (While the Fear-O-Matic is kind of a joke, it's based on a real issue.  I didn't pick these 10 talking points at random.  I went through all the anti-Amazon articles over the last six months, many of which are long and kind of pointless, and tried to identify what common issues they raised.  A real pattern quickly emerged, and not one inherent in general anti-Amazon or anti-technology craziness.  It became very clear this is a managed media campaign and writers are being told what to focus on so the echo chamber fully repeats.)

For those of you who aren't familiar with how to launch a big media campaign to convince the public to care about something they don't care about, here's how it works.  Start by planting a "serious journalism" piece in a major magazine.  It should be something like a reporter investigating and coming to the conclusion that, based on his research, "Amazon might be evil and out to destroy literature."  Then you follow it up with as many editorials, commentary and opinion pieces as possible with talking (or writing) heads shouting, "Yes!  That reporter is right.  Amazon is evil!  And it will destroy literature."

See how nice that works?  Someone who is supposedly "objective" and a "real journalist" investigates.  Supposedly they don't have any agenda but to find the truth.  Then they present their information and pundits pounce on the "revelations."  Of course, the key to this is to coordinate it all in advance and make sure all the key talking points are hit.  The reporter already knows what he's going to find, and simply goes out and tries to prove it, usually by interviewing people who are in on the con and will tell him what he wants to hear.  Then all he has to do is avoid any information that might disprove his conclusions.

As fans of the Fear-O-Matic know, the original "serious reporting" anti-Amazon piece was by George Packer, which came out about six months ago and gave birth to dozens of opinion pieces attacking Amazon.  But I guess the PR team running the Amazon hate machine felt the need to relubricate the media sphere with another "serious" reporting piece, and thus Keith Gessen and Vanity Fair were called into action.

The piece is written to appear to be objective while making sure to hit all the usual Amazon hate talking points.  It appears objective enough that a lot of the commentators on the Passive Voice praised it for covering both sides, including Hugh Howey.  To achieve this appearance of objectivity, Gessen borrows heavily from Packer by making the piece very, very long.  He starts with a lot of history and somewhat neutral backstory and then sneaks in the hate in here and there by quoting haters and adds an extra big dollop of his own hate toward the end.  I doubt the PR machine cares if people read it all, and probably they hope no one does carefully.  So being long actually helps.  People skip over the actual article and only read the opinions of later pundits to point at it's "objectivity" and then respin the hate stronger.

But that's where they Fear-O-Matic comes in, it tosses out all the clutter and focuses on the true message.  Let's take a look:

THE WAR OF WORDS - FOM SCORE: 7.5

Gessen hits an excellent 7.5 on the Fear-O-Matic, making sure to cover ALL ten anti-Amazon talking points!  He scores a little less than the 8.5 Franklin Foer got with his terrifically hateful piece for the New Republic, primarily because Gessen waffles on the (widely discredited) idea that Amazon has a monopoly and that big publishers are helpless (which is also absurd).  Interestingly, he gets the exact same score as the other "serious journalism" piece by Packer.  It's difficult to really pile on the hate when you're trying to appear objective.  But, to Gessen's credit, he did manage to slip in some extra hate against self-publishers and "kinda" demanded government action, two points Packer didn't originally cover.

FOM READING BETWEEN THE LINES:

Now, I don't want to go out of my way to attack Mr. Gessen, only his writing.  You can do your own Google search and come to your own conclusions about him.  He does have some "serious journalist" credentials.  And just because he went to Harvard, it would be unfair to assume he's exactly the kind of person Clay Shirky was referring to as a "member of the Sancerre-swilling East Coast Media Elite" who feel their privileged status threatened by Amazon's willingness to let the unwashed masses publish books with permission.  Yet, given that he is investigating whether Amazon is destroying literature, I think it's fair to point out that he is, according to Vanity Fair itself, not only a "reporter" but a handsome young literary darling of the traditional publishing world.  Not just any handsome young literary darling, he is, according to Vanity Fair, one who would have been a "made man" if it wasn't for the nasty old internet who doesn't seem to appreciate Harvard and being told which writers should now be admired and loved.  I guess he was really flamed after his first book was traditionally published.  Does that mean he already has an agenda against technology?  Or that he might not approach the subject of Amazon, technology and self-publishing objectively?  That he might be prone to see the world of technology as an evil place ruled by a super-villian like Dr. No?  We can't know for sure based on his past.  (I mean, who trusts what Vanity Fair says anyway?)  We also can't know for sure that he won't be objective because he wants a good deal for his next literary masterpiece from a big publisher.  But we certainly can know that this particular piece is highly biased against technology, is snobbishly dismissive of self-publishing and is pretty much what you would expect from an unappreciated literary darling who has been bruised by the internet.

Despite being presented as a journalistic investigation, there is little real reporting or new information. (Other than long quotes from the Gessen’s own literary agent.)  While it pretends to cover both sides, there is absolutely nothing negative about big publishing.  The DOL conspiracy is portrayed as their innocent attempts to deal with Amazon's heavy handed tactics.  There is nothing about big publishers forcing “standard” contracts on writers and other bad practices, which logically should be part of the debate.  There is nothing negative about the consolidation of big publishing houses into even bigger media conglomerates.  He even portrays it as good news that there is even more consolidation, because maybe that will help big publishing fight Amazon.  Like many other Amazon fear mongers, somehow the end of advances to writers means the end of civilization. That meme has been discredited, over an over, but Gessen never questions it.

Not surprisingly for a handsome literary darling, while he mentions that there is a culture war at the bottom of it all, it's clear which side he is on.  AU and Douglas Preston are presented as trying to protect culture, they are people who  “feel very strongly about books.” Self-publishers are dismissed as people who rise “to the defense of their benefactor (Amazon).” Self-publishers are also bitter people who, when they “lashed out at traditional publishing, they often spoke with the passion of the dispossessed. ” Is it possible self-publishers also care about art and literature, but disagree about Amazon’s role?  Nope, self-publishers arguments “… were self-interested or disingenuous or silly…”  

There are two particularly interesting tidbits buried in all the manipulated history, empty reporting and hidden commentary.  Overall, the piece smacks of smugness, with Gessen making an occasional snarky aside that would seem to hint that he knows he's writing in favor of the wrong side.  (For example, admitting that the loss of book advances personally concerns him more, since it will effect his future writing deals, than the destruction of Western Civilization.)  Not surprisingly, he doesn't actually interview or quote anyone on the self-publishing side.  But he does reprint a section of Hugh Howey and J. A. Konrath's Change.org petition so he can mock it later as being "silly."  Why not actually interview Howey or Konrath, who are easy to get a hold of?  Well, that would require time consuming reporting and leave less space for long quotes by his own agent.  And it would actually treat them as popular writers with valid opinions on book publishing, rather that those crazy internet people that just don't appreciate real literature (see Vanity Fair article on Gessen not being appreciated by the internet just because his book was about Harvard).  

Here's part of the quote from the petition with Gessen's comment in parenthesis:

 “They decided which stories you were allowed to read. They decided which authors were allowed to publish. They charged high prices while withholding less expensive formats. They paid authors as little as possible.” (Actually, that last sentence is largely true.)

Gessen tosses out that the last line is true and then quickly moves on to attacking self-publishers as being silly.  But look at what he choose to quote.  He, himself, admits that it's true that big publishers pay "…authors as little as possible."  Isn't this a huge point?  If he knows it's true that big publishers pay authors as little as possible, how can big publishers be the ones protecting literature?  (And let's ignore that it's not just the last sentence that is true, all the statements in the quote are objectively true also.)  He throws this out and then doesn't comment on what he means by saying it is true.  Paying authors well doesn't matter in protecting literature?  Paying authors doesn't matter in a debate about whether Amazon is good or evil?  Doesn't whether authors are fairly paid deserve a tiny discussion in a very long "serious journalistic investigation" about protecting big publishing?  Nope, better to dismiss it with a passing smug aside.  Sure, writers get screwed, but "books" need to be protected.

Finally, it's rather hard to be taken seriously as a reporter if all you do is go to your powerful agent's office and let him rant about how Amazon is as evil as the terrorist group "ISIS," even if it is in a really prestigious New York building.  (Though it probably will help with your next traditional book deal, since your agent never bothered to email you in the past.)  So, in a moment where the reader might think that some real reporting is about to be done, Gessen details taking a trip all the way to San Bernardino, California to investigate a desert Amazon warehouse.  Anyone following this story knows why.  Amazon has been widely accused of being evil because it's warehouse workers are fainting in hot warehouses.  But Gessen makes no comment on whether or not the warehouse has air conditioning, or is too hot inside, which any real reporter should have mentioned right away.  Nor does he quote any of the workers there.  So presumably, his trip was wasted because the warehouse was cool, the workers said nice things and he couldn't attack Amazon.  But then, he had to expense the trip to Vanity Fair, so I guess he decided to comment on it anyway.  So he mentions the fact that the warehouse workers have to walk a lot.  (Like a lot of other workers, including waitresses.)

He does successfully spin his fruitless warehouse trip into his larger meme of Amazon technology destroying humanity.  The warehouse is filled with conveyer belts and docks and computers and scanners (great reporting!) and people having to hurry about to get things delivered.  We then go to testing labs where Amazon super-villians are dressed in lab coats "as if they had once worked for Dr. No."  Oops, they're not super-villians but technicians in light blue lab coats (lab coats are so sinister). It's all very long and doesn't have much point, but maybe if readers skip over it they will simply catch "desert warehouse" and "Dr. No" and assume Amazon is torturing it's warehouse workers anyway.

Amazon is as bad as ISIS and run by Dr. No.  Excellent fear mongering!

Why I Love my Amazon Paperwhite

I'm never been a fan of dedicated eReaders before.  I glanced suspiciously at the original Amazon Kindle when it came out, but it seemed too small and I didn't like the dim grayish screen.  So I never bought one or even seriously considered it.  Then I got my first iPad and the entire idea of a dedicated reader seemed moot.  I've gone through every iPad model and the Kindle app works great on it.  So there was never any reason to reconsider actual the Kindle reader.

But now that I'm about to take the plunge into self-publishing, I've being reading everything I can on the subject. A couple websites advised future Amazon booksellers to own a Kindle to check out how to properly format for it.  That seemed to make sense, so I went to Staples and found a Kindle Paperlight on sale for just under $100.

And, to my surprise as a hard core iPad fan, I really love it.  Not just for checking out Kindle formatting, but for READING.  I'm not a fast reader, I have dyslexia, so reading is always a little bit of a chore for me, especially, longer novels.  But, to my surprise, the Kindle is a much better reading device than the iPad (even the iPad mini).

For starters, Amazon has come a long way with the new Paperlight screen.  It's much brighter and closer to a pure white than the original Kindle.  While I was initially turned off by the idea of a black and white only screen, there's something very pleasant about reading on it, especially longer works.

Second, I was likewise put off by the thought of the smaller (compared to an iPad) screen.  It's only a little more than six by four inches, but it turns out to be a nice size for the amount of text it can hold.  The size makes it a lot easier to hold in one hand and it is obviously much lighter too.  So, again, it's great for reading longer works.

Then there's the battery life, which is simply amazing, particularly for such a bright screen.  It easily lasts a week or more on one charge with heavy use.  That's just a complete change from managing an iPad.  You can put it on the dresser next to your bed without a charger and pick it up to read anytime you want.  (And, like an iPad, the screen is bright enough to act as a flashlight if you need to get up and go to the bathroom after the bedroom lights are off.)  The battery life, and small size, also makes it perfect for traveling.

In terms of set up, there was little to do but type in my Amazon account information.  My Kindle library popped right up and I had little trouble figuring out how to navigate the books I already own and to buy new books.  It's all very simple and self-evident.  I also discovered it's nice to have a dedicated reading device that doesn't offer the distractions of an iPad, like email and games, particularly for me since I'm easily distracted.

I still haven't figured out if the new Kindle is just much, much better than the old one or if my original bias was unfair.  Either way, I highly recommend that readers, even if you aren't self-publishing and even if you have an iPad, give it at try.  I'm sold.

Here's a fuller review of the model I bought with all the technical details:

Amazon Kindle Paperwhite

Return of the Amazon Fear-O-Matic: Krugman & Gould

One would have hoped Amazon's new deal with Simon & Schuster would taken all the air out of the anti-Amazon's crowds efforts to portray it as the enemy of traditional publishing.  Alas, it is not so.  The fear mongering continues.  And as long as there is fear mongering, the Fear-O-Matic will continue it's important mission.

First we'll take a look at a column by noted economist Paul Krugman that ran a couple days before the Simon and Schuster announcement.  It, and Amazon bashing in general, was quickly torn apart by an excellent piece by Matthew Yglesias on Vox.  That in turn was attacked by a piece on Salon by Emily Gould who, for some reason, made no mention of the Simon & Schuster revelation.  But then, it didn't seem like she bothered to put much work into it anyway.  The best refutal of her piece is simply to reread Matthew Yglesias because she didn't present any real arguments to his excellent points other than say, "Not!"  (Click to enlarge graphics.)

AMAZON'S MONOPSONY IS NOT O.K. - FOM SCORE: 5.5

Krugman only hits a 5.5 on the Fear-O-Matic, mostly with half points for only "kinda" agreeing on the main anti-Amazon talking points.  It's clear his heart isn't in it.  But hey, he still wants those advances from the big publishers, so it was his turn to carry some water for the NY literary establishment.

FOM READING BETWEEN THE LINES:

Krugman argues Amazon isn't a monopoly, it's a "monopsony."  It isn't either, and Krugman knows it, but at least he proves he's a real economist by tossing around the word "monopsony," which sounds so much more economic than monopoly.  On non-economic matters he's even more shaky.  His main point is he feels government action is required because Amazon can be a buzz kill if it doesn't sufficiently promote the books of big publishers.  Why should Amazon be required to provide proper "buzz" for big publishers who refuse to make deals with them?  He doesn't explain.  Nor does he explain why some books should get this critical buzz and others (I guess self-published ones) don't deserve government protected buzz.  Or maybe he thinks every book should get buzz, but wouldn't it defeat the whole point of buzz if everyone got it?

There's this thing called "capitalism" that Krugman should look into now that he's got monopsony kinda covered.  It's where you pay money to get things.  The people who pay more, get more.  Like buzz, if you pay more (in advertising for example) and you get more buzz.  Maybe if the big publishers paid Amazon more money they would get more buzz?  Oops, that was the whole nature of the dispute.  So Krugman thinks Hachette shouldn't have to pay more to Amazon to get more buzz for their books?  Maybe instead of working on Amazon, the government should force Oprah to bring back Oprah's Book Club?  Or maybe TV and radio ads should be free to big publishers?  Oops, that would hurt their parent companies, who are giant media conglomerates.  Surely everyone would agree with Krugman that giant media conglomerates have no way of generating buzz unless the government steps in and forces Amazon to provide it.

VOX ON AMAZON: WAY OFF-BASE - FOM SCORE: 5.5

Gould also only makes a 5.5, less for being wishy washy like Krugman, but for being lazy and not really following up any of her arguments.  Once again, it is odd how the people writing these attack pieces seem to live in a bubble and rarely reference the larger debate or current developments.  I mean, if this is a subject that you really feel strongly about, how can you not mention what others have said about it?  Gould argues that "no one" who cares about literature and ideas can side with Amazon.  Really?  Does she really believe Hugh Howey and Joe Konrath and David Gaughran and Clay Shirky and all the seven thousand people that signed the petition against Author's United don't care about literature?  Or all the people commenting in favor of Amazon on Passive Voice?  None of them care about literature?  I mean, I get that this is just about proving you're on the side of the New York literary team.  That you don't really believe any of it, and know your pieces aren't serving any function.  But at least try to pretend you care.

FOM READING BETWEEN THE LINES:

Typical of these kind of half-baked efforts, Gould claims that Yglesias' strongest point is actually his weakest point, that Amazon already has a lot of competition in ebooks from Apple, Barnes and Noble, etc.  She says, sure, it does have a lot of competition but Amazon is winning anyway.  So she agrees with him.  What's so weak about his argument?  She admits he's completely right.  His argument is correct.  And, as he says, Amazon is winning because it is better.  She agrees.

The weak argument is hers, that for some reason, Amazon should be punished because it would simply be too hard for publishers to try to compete.  I mean, as she says, they would have to like lose money for a while and do other hard things.  Why should they have to do that?  Wouldn't it be easer if people just complained and Amazon stopped being so good at selling things?

Once Krugman gets done reading up on capitalism, maybe he can give Gould a quick lesson.

Amazon Fear-O-Matic: Franklin Foer Edition

So the attacks on Amazon's treatment of Hachette continue to drag on, despite the fact that self-publishers are sick of talking about it and the defenders of "literature" (traditional publishing) have nothing new to say.  And by nothing, I mean absolutely nothing.

If you have any confusion about what the Amazon vs. Hachette controversy is really about, just read Clay Shirky's piece about it.  Betraying his own privileged class, he makes the persuasive argument this is simply the New York literary establishment huffing and puffing because Amazon doesn't treat them like the special snowflakes they believe they are.  Interestingly, none of the special snowflakes have argued with his conclusions, just as they rarely acknowledge all the other compelling arguments against their talking points.  That leaves them with nothing to do but regurgitate the same questioned "facts" that expose the same imaginary crisis, repeat the same flawed logic as to why anyone (but them) should care, and come to the same refuted conclusions as to the need for immediate action.  Different members of the literary establishment faithful step forward to refashion it in different "important" magazines and editorials they control, as if any of this was revelatory or newsworthy.  They seem to be hoping they will all be standing on each other's shoulders to scale the wall of public opinion, but they simply sink into the same mud hole and disappear.

The latest, with the melodramatic title "Amazon Must Be Stopped," is by Franklin Foer.  It's the cover story for the New Republic (but who would know because print is pretty much dead).  It's already been torn apart by better minds than mine.  Here's a solid fisking by self-publisher Barry Eisler.  Here's a legal take down by Maxwell S. Kennerly, Esquire.  And here's the tech perspective by Reihan Salam.

Other than an unenlightening, and inaccurate, rumination on the history of anti-trust laws, there is  nothing in Foer's piece that hasn't been covered repeatedly in previous anti-Amazon pieces.  The main talking points were argued (slightly better) by George Packer in his New Yorker Amazon hate letter, "Cheap Words," six months ago.  I pulled that apart when it first came out so it seems pointless to repeat myself now.  Packer's arguments weren't persuasive six months ago, and they aren't now with Foer plagiarizing them (or plagiarizing the others who did).

So what are we on the side of self-publishing, those of us who don't believe that Amazon is going to destroy "literature," those of us who believe Amazon is one of the best things that happened to books since the paperback novel, supposed to do?  Do we simply ignore this constant repetition of failed arguments by the New York literary elite and hope our silence won't be mistaken for agreement?  Or do we continue to repeat the same defense against the same attacks?  At this point, it's clear the special snowflakes aren't going to give up anytime soon, but it would be nice if we indies can return to the business (or hobby) of actual writing.

So to save everyone time, especially myself, I've invented the Amazon Fear-O-Matic.  Rather than arguing this nonsense beat by beat, I can just plug in the quotes and the Fear-O-Matic does the rest.  So, without further introduction, here is Foer's piece in simple graphic form (click to enlarge):

AMAZON MUST BE STOPPED - FOM SCORE: 8.5

Foer hits a solid 8.5 on the Fear-O-Matic by nailing seven out of ten anti-Amazon talking points and hinting about (for half a point each) the other three.  Excellent fear mongering!

Now that FOM has covered the basics, let's chat briefly about some of the oddities of Foer's piece.  The little original touches that allow us to read between the lines into his real thinking.

FOM READING BETWEEN THE LINES:

NOTHING ABOUT AUTHOR'S UNITED: Oddly, Foer goes way out of his way not to mention that this debate has already been raging for about six months and Douglas Preston formed a group to try to solve the very problem Foer thinks is so serious.  It's one thing not to acknowledge the arguments of your opponents, but he doesn't even mention his supporters.  Or the fact that a $100,000 full page ad was taken out in the NY Times highlighting his concerns. My conclusion from this is that the entire AU campaign is perceived as an embarrassing failure, even by the NY literary establishment, so Foer prefers not to bring it up.  Whatever his preferences, Foer's unwillingness to provide a bigger context for his argument show he isn't really serious about it at all.  He doesn't believe what he's saying, it was simply his turn (as a member of the NY establishment) to write about it.

BIG FIVE POLITICAL POWER: There's an odd mention of the fact that these giant publishing corporations, who supposedly are powerless against Amazon, have political power of their own.  The line is "Even though the five major publishing houses have political connections and economic power of their own, they just can't compete."  The line about political connections kind of comes out of nowhere and is quickly dismissed.  Why is it there?  It would have been enough to say the Big 5 don't have the economic power to stand up to Amazon (even if it isn't true).  Is this a hidden warning to Amazon?  Hey, the Big 5 have politicians and judges in their pockets like so many nickels and dimes?  Or is Foer lamenting that the Big 5 are unwilling to use their political connections to stop Amazon?  (Perhaps because what they want is so unreasonable, even politicians with juicy book deals can't agree to it.)

One explanation for the special snowflake's hysteria about Amazon is that execs at Hachette (and the other big five) have been lecturing them that if they don't do something about Amazon, the big publishers will be forced to punish them by cutting advances and promotion and embracing all those smart self-publishers who don't demand special treatment.  In other words, the real threats are coming from the big publishers through the NY agents to the trad writers (and their literary supporters).  "If you guys don't save yourselves, don't expect us to save you."  This sounds pretty plausible to me.  So Foer's comment about big five political power might be a reveal that the traditional publishers have already told the special snowflakes that they are on their own.

THE BIG FIVE MIGHT CUT ADVANCES:  Foer also oddly states that publishers might be forced to cut advances, and that will end literature as we know it.  It's a very strange argument, as others have pointed out.  First, there's obviously no connection to advances and great literature (big advances usually go to politicians, thus the big five's political clout, and celebrities like Snooki).  Obviously, great literature was written in the past without advances and clearly will be in the future.  So why does Foer focus so much on advances?  Perhaps because advances are exactly the kind of perks that the NY establishment loves.  They aren't connected to actual sales.  They are simply rewarded to the favored.  Like, say, when the editor of the New Republic writes a little book on the side.  Like say, Foer's book on soccer and economics.  The kind of books one really shouldn't expect to compete in the messy real world for readers and royalties based on sales.  Isn't it better that those kind of books are given a nice advance check so the writer feels they accomplished something and can quickly return back to their journalistic musings about why advances are so important to literature?

Overall, some nice fear mongering laced with hidden hints about the pressure the Big Five is applying to a terrified NY literary elite.  For comparison, let's quickly see how it stacks up to George Packer's original anti-Amazon piece.  After all, he also seemed awfully worried that fine journalists like himself might miss out on those book advances:

CHEAP WORDS - FOM SCORE: 7.5

Packer's piece scores a 7.5 FOM, which is high but not as good as Foer.  But, in fairness, Packer's article supposedly wasn't an opinion piece and had to at least pretend to be following some journalist standards.  Because of that, Packer only hinted Amazon was a monopoly (because, by any objective standard, it clearly isn't).  Moreover, Packer's job was to set the stage with "serious reporting" so others could jump in and demand government action to solve the "problems" he supposedly uncovered.  So he lost a point there.  Finally, he didn't touch on the idea that Amazon would turn on self-publishers and that cost him a full point too.  But, also in fairness, Amazon turning on self-publishers does seem to be the one new idea that took a little time to percolate with the anti-Amazon crowd.  So Parker had a disadvantage cutting the trail others would follow.  All in, solid fear mongering that set the standard for what has come since.

Eve's Hungry Episode 11: Africa on Fire

I just put up the latest episode of Eve's Hungry.  Check it out at the link below.  I think it's very funny with some great action.  Just five more episodes until the thrilling conclusion.

Africa on Fire

And my apologies to Leo Laporte.  Remember, it's just a joke, Leo!  I didn't see how I could write about Apple without mentioning MacBreak Weekly.

Positive Energy about Self-Publishing

One of the continuing memes from people attacking self-publishing, particularly those attacking Amazon for treating Hachette writers "unfairly," is that self-publishers are angry.  Like many of the arguments against self-publishing (like it's too "expensive") this one is the exact opposite of the truth.  As a movement, self-publishers generally are optimistic and positive, surprisingly willing to share tips and information and looking for new ways to progress as artists and businessmen.  It is actually the supporters of big publishing that are prone to doom and gloom scenarios.  Perhaps because their side of the industry really is rapidly losing power and prestige.

Unfortunately, the fierce disinformation spun by supporters of big publishing in their attacks on Amazon put self-publishers on the defensive.  Self-publishers been forced to be vocal in exposing those lies (like that Amazon is "censoring" books) and had to respond to some of the crazier suggestions, like government intervention to maintain big publishing control.  In the process, it started to feel to me like the negativity has taking it's toll on the self-publishing community.  Particularly with people like the almost supernaturally optimistic Hugh Howey, who has been the specific subject of many really nasty attacks for simply trying to bring out the truth.  For a while it seemed like he was going to be buried in defending himself.

So I was very happy to read his latest post where he seems to have completely moved on from the Amazon/Hachette fight.  He has returned his focus to optimistic inquiry about how to grow the self-publishing industry with many great suggestions:

POSITIVE ENERGY FROM HUGH HOWEY

There is barely a mention of traditional publishing both in his piece and in the comments.   That's because, self-publishers really don't care much about traditional publishing.  The Amazon/Hachette fight has been portrayed by big publishing proxies as a life or death battle for the future.  But frankly, it doesn't matter much to self-publishers (so long as the government doesn't get involved).

Hopefully, the other side has run out of crazy arguments to get self-publishers riled up, and self-publihsers feel they've had their say in a matter of relatively little concern to them.  Of course, that's just going to anger big publishing even more.  But as their desperate voices proclaiming the end of literature fade into echoes, now is the time for self-publishers move on to the fun stuff.

Writing and selling books.