Latest Authors United letter to Amazon Board

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's fairly humorous how when you (that's a generic you, btw) disagree with the authors, then it's a steaming pile of garbage, yet if an author posts something that you agree with, then it's Right On, Dude!

If you are going to do the appeal to authority, then you can't have it both ways. You either respect the right of authors to have an informed opinion on the matter, or they are just another Joe whose only value is that they agree or disagree with your personal belief.

I would also point out that the author's main point, that books are not simply gross product is fairly obvious true, otherwise you wouldn't have best selling authors such as J.K. Rowlings, Stephen King, etc. Simply dismissing it out of hand as a steaming pile of garbage doesn't make it untrue, no matter how strongly you may personally feel about it.

Have you taken the trouble to actually read even one of the criticisms of the letter? It is so bad it is embarrasing, and does no credit to those who signed it. I actually think the BWM would be better without this type of assistance, which is so misconceived in its approach that it is likely to alienate people from their cause rather than attract them to it.

As to your final paragraph, far from dismissing it out of hand, I simply feel that the criticisms referred to in this thread do such a comprehensive demolition of this steaming pile of garbage that I have no need to rehash them here. As for the authors "main point", you could make the same argument in relation to any product. Using this reasoning, surely cars are not simply gross product, otherwise you wouldn't have best selling models like .................

In any event, the point they actually tried to make, apparently in all seriousness, was not that books are totally interchangeable, which is what I assume you are referring to when you say books are not simply gross product. It was that books are not consumer goods! The so-called "special snowflake" argument. Delusional, patronising, insulting and just plain stupid and wrong.

[LovesMacs]

Perhaps I am missing something obvious here, but how is Amazon (or any retailer) obligated to sell any given item?

[DiapDealer]

"Please, Mr/Mrs Amazon Board of Director Person, don't make it difficult for consumers to purchase our not-consumer goods. We have to send our kids to college after all. We don't care what you do to those people who put food on the table by working in industries that produce regular old crap--but we deserve special treatment. Their kids probably weren't going to college anyway. Squeeze them to make your margins, not us pretty-people."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"Please, Mr/Mrs Amazon Board of Director Person, don't make it difficult for consumers to purchase our not-consumer goods. We have to send our kids to college after all. We don't care what you do to those people who put food on the table by working in industries that produce regular old crap--but we deserve special treatment. Their kids probably weren't going to college anyway. Squeeze them to make your margins, not us pretty-people."

"And never mind the stunt at Colbert telling our readers not to buy from you."

[DiapDealer]

"And <insert cultural epithet here>."

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I would also point out that the author's main point, that books are not simply gross product is fairly obvious true, otherwise you wouldn't have best selling authors such as J.K. Rowlings, Stephen King, etc. Simply dismissing it out of hand as a steaming pile of garbage doesn't make it untrue, no matter how strongly you may personally feel about it.

This objection is a steaming pile of garbage, on account of being completely out of touch with the reality behind not only books and other consumer products, but also luxury consumer products (see car example above).

Of course, it would help if you stopped randomly assuming that anyone (other than authors who sign petitions in support of Hachette) thinks all books should be interchangeable. (Because that is not even remotely the same thing as "books are a type of consumer product." )

[bgalbrecht]

If Doug Preston isn't taking sides, then where is the letter to Hatchette urging them to do a better job of negotiating a new contract with Amazon, or at least, asking both of them to extend the terms of the previous contract until the new contract is finalized.

[SteveEisenberg]

Delusional, patronising, insulting and just plain stupid and wrong.

This objection is a steaming pile of garbage . . .

I think this non-big-five book, which I recommend, is relevant:

http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php

As explained in the book, once you get even 60 percent of the people in a neighborhood agreeing on something -- anything -- opinions tend to ramp up in intensity until you start seeing righteous certainty. This kind of thread is such a neighborhood.

Perhaps there are listservs, restricted to major-published authors, where they similarly ramp up until there are comparable statements of certainty, albeit with opposite content. Good thing, for those authors' sake, that, AFAIK, any such forums are non-public. Neighborhoods of certainty do not look so attractive from the outside.

Personally, I don't like this kind of rah-rah our side is right. Maybe it's for the same unknown reason that the sports fan gene seems to have mostly skipped my family.

Now, back to the actual discussion of an eReading related issue.

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

. . . where is the letter to Hatchette urging them to do a better job of negotiating a new contract with Amazon, or at least, asking both of them to extend the terms of the previous contract until the new contract is finalized.

Do you have a link to copy of this contract?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Do you have a link to copy of this contract?

No, but I know that Amazon and Hatchette had one. I'm only guessing, but I suspect that both Amazon and Hatchette have tried to make changes in the new contract to which the other one objects, and neither one is willing to keep the old contract in place indefinitely.

[darryl]

Thanks for your post, Steve. The phenomenon you discuss is a very real one. Discussions get boring very quickly when there are no opposing views. The statements you quote are mine.

I freely concede that I am biased. I dislike the BWM publishers because I think I paid extortionate prices for books for most of my life before Amazon came to the rescue. So did my parents on my behalf. And they continue to try to overcharge Australians even today, at least in my view. I also confess a pecuniary interest to the extent that I love paying less for my ebooks. I love Amazon, what they have done and what they are doing. I do not, however, think that they are perfect nor do I think they are motivated by altruism.

I do recognise that there are some reasonably arguable views contrary to my own. But I am surprised that such a strategy as this letter was ever seriously contemplated let alone implemented. However, given that it was, I would have expected that such a letter signed by such writers would have put those arguments intelligently, articulately and most of all persuasively. Instead, it is full of spin and half-truths and worse. I genuinely think that this letter has far more likely harmed their cause than enhanced it. I can do no better than refer you to the various links in this thread where the numerous shortcomings of the letter are discussed, starting with Hugh Howev and J.A. Konrath.

My "steaming pile" rhetoric may be a little bit strong. But I was seeking an appropriate way to express my disgust, and this was what I came up with. And not just a normal steaming pile. I'm thinking the scene with the Vet in Jurassic Park.

So far as my other comment goes, it is accurate. The letter is delusional in the sense that it shows a real disconnect from the real world and real people. Honestly, books are not consumer products! Patronising? The air of we are prominent authors and we are special and entitled to special treatment which permeates the letter is almost overpowering. Insulting. That they actually seem to believe that they can turn the tide of public opinion with this ill conceived piece of spin. Well, I suppose they did fool one reporter at the New York Times, who others have followed. Stupid? Overlaps with patronising and insulting. The whole strategy is flawed. A piece of spin like this needs to be done well. And just plain wrong? Look at the many criticisms for examples. I particularly liked the concept of the advance for the untried author to give up their day job and write their first book. In response to this I can't resist quoting part of Susanna Kearsley's comment linked to by AnemicOak in Post #3. I might add that she makes her point forcefully and elegantly, as one should be able to expect from quality authors:

You write the book.

You find a way. You do what 99% of us have done, and fund yourself. I wrote my own first book by working on it every night from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. while holding down a day job, and when that became too much I quit that day job and I waitressed for the next five and a half years because waitressing allowed me flexibility to travel for my research, and to sleep in after writing late. You find a way.

You don’t wait for someone else to fund you so your “unique, quirky” brain can work in privileged solitude. For years, I wrote the book, then sold it, THEN got the advance. And I waitressed until that advance reached a level that let me support myself.

I’ll go out on a limb, here, and guess that if you asked the writers who signed their names under that letter how many of them were given first advances that enabled them “to leave their jobs to write their first books”, you wouldn’t see many hands raised. So I really don’t know what they’re on about.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

No, but I know that Amazon and Hatchette had one. I'm only guessing, but I suspect that both Amazon and Hatchette have tried to make changes in the new contract to which the other one objects, and neither one is willing to keep the old contract in place indefinitely.

Not quite.

Amazon's Grandinetti publicly stated that the Hachette contract expired in March.
After Hachette refused to even answer attempts to renegotiate, Amazon kept providing services for two months as a courtesy. Come May, they stopped providing services which, instead of honest negotiation, brought the crapstorm media campaign.

More recently, I've heard a rumor that Hachette has no intention whatsoever to negotiate because they have been building their own ebookstore to try to sell watermarked ebooks directly to Kibdle customers. Unfortunately, the thing isn't working just yet...

But they are absolutely positively sure that is the magic silver bullet that will kill eee-Amazonvile and let them go back to the pre-Kindle days of $35 ebooks.

[crossi]

They won't get me as a customer. I'll just write off their authors.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crossi

They won't get me as a customer. I'll just write off their authors.

I already did.
Only nine ever got money from me, none ever will again.

[fjtorres]

Hey! They edited their letter!
Now instead of dissing the Chinese, they diss every author outside the US.

http://www.laurakirwan.com/blog/has-...-amazons-board

Talk about doubling down.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Hey! They edited their letter!
Now instead of dissing the Chinese, they diss every author outside the US.

http://www.laurakirwan.com/blog/has-...-amazons-board

Talk about doubling down.

And... They still haven't fixed the typo in the first sentence. Anybody know a good editor that can help these poor starving snowflakes?