# Jeff Bezos = one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

That's author Jonathan Franzen's take in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/13/jonathan-franzen-wrong-modern-world

The reference is buried in a lengthy book excerpt, so here it is:

"In my own little corner of the world, which is to say American fiction, Jeff Bezos of Amazon may not be the antichrist, but he surely looks like one of the four horsemen. Amazon wants a world in which books are either self-published or published by Amazon itself, with readers dependent on Amazon reviews in choosing books, and with authors responsible for their own promotion. The work of yakkers and tweeters and braggers, and of people with the money to pay somebody to churn out hundreds of five-star reviews for them, will flourish in that world. But what happens to the people who became writers because yakking and tweeting and bragging felt to them like intolerably shallow forms of social engagement? What happens to the people who want to communicate in depth, individual to individual, in the quiet and permanence of the printed word, and who were shaped by their love of writers who wrote when publication still assured some kind of quality control and literary reputations were more than a matter of self-promotional decibel levels? As fewer and fewer readers are able to find their way, amid all the noise and disappointing books and phony reviews, to the work produced by the new generation of this kind of writer, Amazon is well on its way to making writers into the kind of prospectless workers whom its contractors employ in its warehouses, labouring harder for less and less, with no job security, because the warehouses are situated in places where they're the only business hiring. And the more of the population that lives like those workers, the greater the downward pressure on book prices and the greater the squeeze on conventional booksellers, because when you're not making much money you want your entertainment for free, and when your life is hard you want instant gratification ("Overnight free shipping!")."

I still feel grateful for the opportunities that Amazon has given me, but I can see that the future may be grim...Hopefully, not apocalyptic, as JF suggests, though.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Jonathan Franzen would do better to write some more books than to say bitter, whiney, arrogant things in interviews.

It is one thing to disagree with stuff people do. People do lots of things I don't agree with. But I cannot see one single good reason to be such an absolute arse about it.

I would say more, but that will probably get me banned here.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Ah, J-Franz. I love him.

I can't say I really disagree with what he's saying, not entirely. Promotion and sheer production volume are huge factors for most of us breaking through the current equivalent of the slush pile. 

He's not wrong that there's no place for someone like him in New Publishing, and that really is a shame, because say what you will about his personality, his books are really something. They're smart. And they're thick. And he puts them out every 10 years. He'd never cut it as one of us, never grovel for stars and do .99 cent promotions.

Without the traditional publishing industry of the post-bookpocalyptic future, I would imagine there will be literary foundations set up that run publishing houses as non-profit entities, just so they can foster some works into the world that otherwise wouldn't exist. Ladies who lunch will raise funds for these important projects, but will they read the books?


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

I'll admit that the other shoe could drop someday, when Amazon decides to start earning profits instead of losing money each quarter, but this still strikes me as absurd on its face.

Who are these philosophers who are—or who were, until recently—earning a living as earnest, reflective intellectuals, penning prose instead of promoting products? Who are these poor saps who are losing money and independence thanks to the rise of indy publishing? It's premised on a reality that I don't recognize. I'm sure Jonathan Franzen could tick off a list (starting with Jonathan Franzen), but it's still a vanishingly small conclave of elites. The danger to their livelihoods doesn't rank high on my list of injustices perpetrated by modernity and capitalism.

I dunno, man. It's as if people think that anti-intellectualism is a new thing. It's as if erudite, well-educated folks like Franzen have forgotten about the Red Scares, and the complaints about telegraphs and telephones, flappers, and that gosh-darned rock music. Don't get me wrong: I never would've traded Edward R. Murrow for Wolf Blitzer if I'd been asked for my opinion, and I completely agree that Twitter is stupid and a waste of my time. I still think things are getting better, on balance.

Jeff Bezos is a visionary whose legacy has yet to be fully defined. Where independent publishing is concerned, I think he's done the world a service. God knows where else we could've turned to sate our cravings for tentacle erotica and time travel sci-fi romance.

Few will mourn the passing of the old guard of gatekeepers, save their favored sons. I suppose I don't begrudge Franzen his complaints, but I don't identify with them either.


----------



## cecilia_writer (Dec 28, 2010)

Personally I am quite happy for both Jonathan Franzen and me to have the opportunity to publish our novels for anyone to read. The fact that I find his writing so dense and wordy that I couldn't even get through this Guardian article is irrelevant. Thanks Mike for posting just enough to stop me switching off and going to get a scone!

I don't think I would have got my own opportunity to publish without Amazon though, and neither would lots of other writers. It seems to me that he [JF] has gone so much on the defensive about his own part in literature that he wants to deny to others the chance to play some part. He doesn't seem to realise that writing can communicate ideas without having to be completely inaccessible to the average reader.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm going to come at this from the other side.  Imagine this world where readers can't distinguish good from bad because of all the noise.  In that world, I say, a new method will arise to inform people, just like in the "old days."  For some, right now, that's Bookbub--clearly they have some quality control and are protecting their name.  Readers will turn to them and others like them more and more.  Or some other methods, like personal Facebook accounts, to spread info on good books.  When good books are found, they'll yell it from the highest mountains.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

I don't know the system seems to work really well for him...and it is working really well for someone like me. What's the bottom line in all this...readers stupid.  They have great diversity in choices. In a world without the entrepreneur aspects of indie authors New York will churn out the same top-selling morass.  With self-publishing any great idea (even those that couldn't make it through the gates) can have an opportunity to thrive. It will be the readers that are in control of any book's fate and I don't care what path it takes to get to the reader for judgement.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Amazon wants a world in which books are either self-published or published by Amazon itself, with readers dependent on Amazon reviews in choosing books, and with authors responsible for their own promotion.


Id say this guy doesnt know much about business and economics.



> I'll admit that the other shoe could drop someday, when Amazon decides to start earning profits instead of losing money each quarter, but this still strikes me as absurd on its face.


Profits to investors are not limited to what the income statement shows. The owners of Amazon are earning very good profits each quarter. The profit comes in the appreciation of their stock holdings. Its a myth that Amazon is not making money. The owners are making lots of it.


----------



## Lexi Revellian (May 31, 2010)

Another instance of what Passive Guy calls _Amazon Derangement Syndrome_.


----------



## S. Shine (Jan 14, 2013)

So, basically he is whining about the simple fact that those who can adapt to an ever changing environment will win, and those who can't are left behind; as long as the game is in his favor he will sing praise, but otherwise he'll go boohoo. That's just weak.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

That man can f*%$ing write!

And I do feel sympathetic for the established writers who see all this change coming. It must be terrifying. Not unlike watching a meteor hurtle toward Earth and knowing the end is well freakin' nigh.

But I resent two things: First, the idea that successful authors these days are hucksters. Books only take off if they entertain. The reader is in charge of what succeeds. Shouldn't he be decrying the TWILIGHTS, Dan Browns, and EL James? What about the Pattersons? That's his corner of the book biz, and it's all about booksellers stacking up mountains of the latest craze, not promoting what JF would consider literature. So kindly f*&@ off about how great your world is.

Secondly, blaming Bezos shows to me that JF might be a savant when it comes to language, but an absolute moron when it comes to the way the world works. Blame progress, the invention of computers, the internet, e-ink displays, whatever you want. Go read WHAT TECHNOLOGY WANTS by Kevin Kelly. The change afoot right now has nothing to do with Jeff Bezos and everything to do with inevitability. Digitization upended every other artistic medium. Did JF really think his would be immune? This was always going to happen. The name of the company and the name of its CEO is irrelevant. The readers WANT this, JF, which makes you a tyrant for wishing you could control their appetites or shove your particular fodder down their throats. Go buy an island in the Caribbean and stomp around in a military outfit, please. It'll suit you.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

I find it sad that an author of note doesn't encourage the advancement of the written word into the bold new world of the digital age. Sure, it isn't the same as turning pages. 

Truth be told it IS another format that has taken off in ways that paper hasn't. 
In my opinion, the written word needs a helping hand anyway. Thank goodness for ebooks.

Listen....
We're a planet of over 7 billion.
Discount a billion or so for being growing newborns who have not yet experienced the joy of reading.
By my estimates, out of the 6 billion remaining, 3 or 4 billion people  CAN read on some level.

Sadly, ( again- my estimates) only a few hundred million out of that 3 billion ACTIVELY pursue reading for enjoyment. 

This is beyond the standard daily glance at headlines, and reading the multitude of billboards and ads that are thrust at us around the word in the civilized parts of the world.

Think of that.

Only a few hundred million actively go out of their way to take the time to spend a few hours a day/week.
Reading words that take them out of their daily lives.

Those numbers in my opinion are way too low.

And this blubbering by John doesn't help our cause.

Anything ( paper, digital, audio) that encourages those who seek to be entertained through the written word should be nurtured and pushed.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

More writers seems to be making a living from their work than any time in history. How is that bad again?


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> That man can f*%$ing write!
> 
> And I do feel sympathetic for the established writers who see all this change coming. It must be terrifying. Not unlike watching a meteor hurtle toward Earth and knowing the end is well freakin' nigh.
> 
> ...


The only thing I would add to this is Lexi's comment about PG's "Amazon Derangement Syndrome" along with my losing all respect for JF after reading this nonsense.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> More writers seems to be making a living from their work than any time in history. How is that bad again?


Because a large chunk of the money coming from the readers who enjoy those writers is coming from electronic media- which is threatening the tradition paper standards.

And they are scared.

And they are circling the wagons instead of embracing the possibilities this particular format can provide. Which for me is counter productive. Especially since they hang the dirty laundry in the very venue we need to encourage new readers with.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

So Bezos is one of the four horsemen? Who are the other three? 

I nominate Johannes Gutenberg.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> So Bezos is one of the four horsemen? Who are the other three?
> 
> I nominate Johannes Gutenberg.


I love riding horses! Me! Pick me!


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

Miley Cyrus, for the third! She could be all twerking and JF could be all


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

I guess it's _his_ turn to pitch a temper tantrum.

It wasn't so long ago that the sticks and stones were thrown at Jonathan Franzen (and The New York Times), so I suppose if he gathered them up, he might as well throw them at someone else. But that doesn't make him right. I always think you either bend with the change, or your let break you.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Well, if Jeff Bezos is a harbinger of doom, at least he's a cute one.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

The rest of the reader/writer world will change along with Amazon.

There will be more "gatekeepers" in some form for those readers who need another opinion.
And there will be some very savvy people out there who read Franzen's woe-is-us and start marketing themselves as agents for self-publishers who'd rather not do the self-promo, which to me seems to be the core of his issue.

Every time someone reads my promoted title and goes on to buy another I'm assured that I'm not a hack or huckster, at least to that person. I may be to thousands of others but those aren't my problem.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

I wonder how cute Bezos will be when the “Zon” starts squeezing its suppliers. For some reason, people assume royalties will remain the same for all eternity. Why would they? What incentive does Amazon have to keep them the way they are when history shows that enough people will write enough books to supply the market no matter how small the return?


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

WHDean said:


> I wonder how cute Bezos will be when the "Zon" starts squeezing its suppliers. For some reason, people assume royalties will remain the same for all eternity. Why would they? What incentive does Amazon have to keep them the way they are when history shows that enough people will write enough books to supply the market no matter how small the return?


I suppose that's one way of driving indie prices up


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

WHDean said:


> I wonder how cute Bezos will be when the "Zon" starts squeezing its suppliers. For some reason, people assume royalties will remain the same for all eternity. Why would they? What incentive does Amazon have to keep them the way they are when history shows that enough people will write enough books to supply the market no matter how small the return?


What do you suggest we do in the face of this fear of what has not yet happened? Should we side with those who are screwing us now and run away from those being generous? I don't get it.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

cecilia_writer said:


> The fact that I find his writing so dense and wordy that I couldn't even get through this Guardian article is irrelevant. Thanks Mike for posting just enough to stop me switching off and going to get a scone!


Sorry, Hugh, but I have to agree with Cecila on JF's style. This guy has to get over himself.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Desmond X. Torres said:


> Sorry, Hugh, but I have to agree with Cecila on JF's style. This guy has to get over himself.


Oh, I agree on that last. I loved THE CORRECTIONS. Haven't read anything else of his. I found this article to be pretentious, boring, and without a point.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

Mike McIntyre said:


> That's author Jonathan Franzen's take in the Guardian:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/13/jonathan-franzen-wrong-modern-world
> 
> ...


That future is now, Mike.

Just take a look at what it's like writing for Harlequin...
http://jakonrath.blogspot.ca/2012/05/harlequin-fail.html

What JF describes as Apocalyptic has been going on for years, and Konrath's guest post is just a peek at one company.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

jljarvis said:


> In the end, the main point is this:
> In so many words (and I mean so _many_ words) Jonathan Franzen is doing what we all do. Jonathan Franzen is promoting a book.
> 
> Moreover, he's more like us than he'd care to admit. Typos happen-even to the tweetless elite.


1-star! Hire an editor! Typos on the first page! Not worth reading! Blah blah blah!

(LOL'ed at your "so _many _words")


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

There are some commentaries out there that are just too idiotic to even warrant response or analysis.  Congrats to Franzen...not everyone gets to say something so perfectly and profoundly stupid.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

Jay Allan said:


> Congrats to Franzen...not everyone gets to say something so perfectly and profoundly stupid.


Yeah... what Jay sez... oh man I love that line.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

As I read this excerpt, one word kept popping into my head - "RESPONSIBILTY."

The writer doesn't want to be responsible for marketing or promotion.
The writer doesn't want individuals to be responsible for what books are published - he wants to give that responsibility to someone else.
He doesn't want readers to be responsible for selecting their own books, he wants someone in a NY office to make that decision.
An on-the-take NY Times critic should hold responsibility for reviews, not individuals.
No author should be responsible for investing in their book - that burden should be placed on others.
Writer's shouldn't be responsible for their own public image, such as in social media. Some PR person should have that responsibility.
Authors shouldn't be responsible for their own job security, pricing or distribution, we should place that responsibility in someone else's hands.

I get it. Some folks just want to write and let others deal with all of the above. That's cool. I support them 100%.

My problem with the above is that I don't attack traditional publishing unless it is a defensive posture. So there are two different roads for authors. Why is that always so bad with these guys and their continued attacks?

Since when is taking responsibility for one's own livelihood a bad thing?


----------



## Robert Gregory Browne (Mar 10, 2011)

WHDean said:


> I wonder how cute Bezos will be when the "Zon" starts squeezing its suppliers. For some reason, people assume royalties will remain the same for all eternity. Why would they? What incentive does Amazon have to keep them the way they are when history shows that enough people will write enough books to supply the market no matter how small the return?


I really get tired of this argument. It's fear talking and little else. There's no evidence past or present that Amazon will do this. But if it DOES happen, then we'll find a way to deal with it, just as we found a way to deal with the massive layoff of midlisters in traditional publishing.

As for Franzen, he's a douche and always has been. This isn't the first time he's let his arrogance trump his common sense.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

What Franzen is ultimately complaining about is the potential loss of the New York literary culture's status ladder, which put every writer in their place with guys like Franzen at the top. Well, Franzen can stop complaining. New York literary culture will arrange to protect itself. It always has before, and it's very good at it.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Mike McIntyre said:


> That's author Jonathan Franzen's take in the Guardian:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/13/jonathan-franzen-wrong-modern-world
> 
> ...


What a drama queen. I think he's taking it way too personal. Bezos and Amazon want to sell books and music and faucets and pots and pans. The department we deal with is their bookstore and they sell books from both big, small, SP's, and micro-publishers. If you have a book they will sell it. I don't think he likes the competition. Afterall it is the readers who decide which book to buy, not the authors or publishers.

I think he recalls the days when publishers had a stranglehold on what authors and books were deemed worthy and he and his anointed brethren were on top.


----------



## Michael Murray (Oct 31, 2011)

I understand what he's saying though - it killed my artistic angel inside to submit my book to ENT. There were alot of fields on the form and with each one she died a little. Required fields are the worst, the red stars really mess with her head. Then there was Kindle Books and Tips, Book Blast, Book Gorilla, all those forms, all those fields omygod. 

But then I reminded her that angels are immortal and she was like 'oh yeah, cool, lets write some more.'


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Id say this guy doesnt know much about business and economics.
> 
> Profits to investors are not limited to what the income statement shows. The owners of Amazon are earning very good profits each quarter. The profit comes in the appreciation of their stock holdings. Its a myth that Amazon is not making money. The owners are making lots of it.


Very true. Jeff Bezos didn't buy The Washington Post out of his pocket change because he doesn't make money.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> I wonder how cute Bezos will be when the "Zon" starts squeezing its suppliers. For some reason, people assume royalties will remain the same for all eternity. Why would they? What incentive does Amazon have to keep them the way they are when history shows that enough people will write enough books to supply the market no matter how small the return?


So... You are saying that we shouldn't publish with Amazon because someday the royalties _might_ go down?

ETA: Back on topic, since I meant to comment on our old 'friend' JF: I have found him unbearably pretentious even before his 1996 essay _Perchance to Dream_ when he started bemoaning the state of contemporary literature. He seriously needs to find a new theme song. He has always been a self-important git. I am old enough to remember when he went on about his first novel _The Twenty-Seventh City_ that it was "a conversation with the literary figures of my parents' generation". Sheesh. Well, that kind of attitude that he is a literary savior is kind of understandable in a young author who is receiving more attention than is good for him, but isn't it fricking time he _outgrew_ it?!


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

I hope to take everyone by surprise and be one of the other three. No one's expecting a woman.


----------



## Janet Michelson (Jun 20, 2012)

Blah, blah, blah, the sky is falling--again. 

Blah, blah, blah, soon there will be nothing decent to read.

Blah, blah, blah, soon nothing on the planet will be good in this century or the next.

Blah, blah, blah, I can't deal with change so no one else should accept change either.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm working on the assumption that Amazon (and any other ebook retailer in a position to do so) will ultimately lower author royalties if they can.  It's one of the reasons I'm keen to publish on multiple platforms.  That's not personal though, it's business.  It's also NO different to what trad pubs have done to authors for decades!

Even if (in a highly improbable worst-case scenario) all publishing outlets made it impossible for indie authors to make any money selling via them, there would still be ways to earn money from your writing - as long as you don't sign a crazy contract.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Just looked on Goodreads for some J-Franz quotes from The Corrections:

“His tiredness hurt so much it kept him awake.” 
― Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections

“Oh, misanthropy and sourness. Gary wanted to enjoy being a man of wealth and leisure, but the country was making it none too easy. All around him, millions of newly minted American millionaires were engaged in the identical pursuit of feeling extraordinary - of buying the perfect Victorian, of skiing the virgin slope, of knowing the chef personally, of locating the beach that had no footprints. There were further tens of millions of young Americans who didn't have money but were nonetheless chasing the Perfect Cool. And meanwhile the sad truth was that not everyone could be extraordinary, not everyone could be extremely cool; because whom would this leave to be ordinary? Who would perform the thankless work of being comparatively uncool?” 
― Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections

“He had a happy canine way of seeking approval without seeming insecure.” 
― Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections

Just sayin'.

(As for the second quote, keep in mind the book is set in the late '90s.)


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Franzen is right. All the doom-and-gloom sayers are right. All of you, each and every one, should go pull all your e-books down from KDP and all your print books from CS and audio books from ACX and anything else you've ever published anywhere. All of it. And promise ... _no _... _swear _on a Bible (or a book of your own choosing) that you will never, ever, never, never, pinky-swear, never write or publish anything ever, never, ever again.

Notice I wrote "all of _you_." Me? Uh, yeah, I'll get around to pulling down all my stuff. Eventually. Just ... go ahead. I'll be right behind you.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> What do you suggest we do in the face of this fear of what has not yet happened? Should we side with those who are screwing us now and run away from those being generous? I don't get it.


Franzen interprets the changes in the industry through a drama of goodies and baddies and regress. The unwashed mass headed by the Great Satan, Bezos, are destroying everything in their path. Indies have a weakness for telling the same story with the roles reversed. Bezos is the visionary Yoda-like leader of the light side of the Force, and Franzen et al. suffer from a mental disorder. But this isn't the real world.

The real world isn't goodies and baddies, and progress or regress. The world is dynamic, and writers as publishers and business people are all in the same boat: they're all suppliers. So the negative forces that affect Franzen affect everyone. And some of what he says is true. A steady stream of threads here complain about having to market books, and a lot of other writers probably seek out publishers because they're just don't want the business side of it. Not everyone is an alpha-level extrovert like you, after all.

So what happens to these people-I mean the ones who want to write but don't want to be in the publishing business-as traditional publishing shrinks? Will successful indies tell them what successful traditionally published authors used to tell indies who couldn't land a publisher, namely, "You're just not cut out for this business"?

Anyway, to answer your question, we should face the world as it is. Looking at it in a way that makes one into the member of some kind of vanguard is good for the ego, but bad for the eyes-it's bound to blind a person to what forces are at work and what's really happening.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Robert Gregory Browne said:


> I really get tired of this argument. It's fear talking and little else. There's no evidence past or present that Amazon will do this. But if it DOES happen, then we'll find a way to deal with it, just as we found a way to deal with the massive layoff of midlisters in traditional publishing.
> 
> As for Franzen, he's a douche and always has been. This isn't the first time he's let his arrogance trump his common sense.


To call it "fear," I'd actually have to be afraid something. Since I'm not, it's not fear. (But thanks for the free exam.)

The only reason Amazon hasn't squeezed its indie suppliers so far is that the royalty rates provide a strong incentive to writers to forego the middle man. Second, and more important, are the low barriers to market entry that Amazon faces, even when there are no other players. In the old world of publishing, starting a publishing house required a huge investment in capital and labour. Nowadays anyone can set up an e-book selling platform with inexpensive off-the-shelf software. If it Amazon cuts the suppliers' portion, the wider profit margins for competitors make market entry more lucrative.

But there's no reason to assume those conditions will last forever, or even for the foreseeable future. And that's not fear; it's economics.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

WHDean said:


> ....A steady stream of threads here complain about having to market books, and a lot of other writers probably seek out publishers because they're just don't want the business side of it. Not everyone is an alpha-level extrovert like you, after all.
> 
> So what happens to these people-I mean the ones who want to write but don't want to be in the publishing business-as traditional publishing shrinks?


This is the big myth: that publishers market your book for you.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

My hope is that literature will become more sharply refined with each passing day, until there is that one shining moment, that one perfect combination of words that encapsulates the essence of life and all meaning. And when that happens, we will have that one perfect work written by that one perfect author. And then the one perfect reader will read those words, and the quest for perfect literature can finally be declared finished.

Then we can go back to writing books that tell good stories and people enjoy reading.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> That man can f*%$ing write!
> 
> And I do feel sympathetic for the established writers who see all this change coming. It must be terrifying. Not unlike watching a meteor hurtle toward Earth and knowing the end is well freakin' nigh.
> 
> ...


Pretty much this. But maybe he didn't think it through. Many don't.


----------



## Michael Murray (Oct 31, 2011)

Cherise Kelley said:


> This is the big myth: that publishers market your book for you.


The do for some writers. Maybe they used to for Franzen, and then his publisher told him it couldn't afford to anymore, because of that mean old Bezons.

IIRMBC (if I read my bible correctly) the horsemen are messengers of the apocalypse, not causal agents.


----------



## brie.mcgill (Jun 5, 2013)

If you look at the successful indies that break into the Amazon Top 100, they all have great covers, they hired editors, they are professional about their work.

It's pretty easy for a reader to separate a cheap scam from a quality product (honestly... read the blurb/look inside), and I think much of this problem naturally sorts itself out. That's why reviews exist. This is what word-of-mouth accomplishes.

In my own micro-microcosmic experience, any social media horn-tooting I did was quickly ignored. Genuine blog recommendations from unknown readers, however, did drive spikes in my sales.

Has anyone sold one million units were pure hucksterism? It might be easier to annoy one million people... which isn't good for sales. 

Yeah, indie publishing is new, it's scary. But it's also incredibly cool, and lots of unknown awesome writers now have a fighting chance.

The future of literature is becoming faster, more accessible, and immortal. I don't see how this is a bad thing.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> I wonder how cute Bezos will be when the "Zon" starts squeezing its suppliers. For some reason, people assume royalties will remain the same for all eternity. Why would they? What incentive does Amazon have to keep them the way they are when history shows that enough people will write enough books to supply the market no matter how small the return?


I don't know how cute he will be. I never thought of him in those terms. When is the squeeze scheduled? What exactly will be squeezed? Most of what Amazon sells is not merchandise they own. Its very much like a consignment model. They can increase commissions and fees, but Walmart and Target are pushing into the same online market.

Who assumes royalties will remain constant? That is definitely contrary to our experience with millions of other goods.

History also repeatedly shows competitors enter markets when they see opportunity. Is there some reason to think it happens in a zillion other markets, but wont happen with books?

We see very good royalties now, and they exist in that same environment where people will write no matter how small the return. That implies there is another strong pressure acting on the market that is countering the willingness of authors to take small returns..



> So what happens to these people-I mean the ones who want to write but don't want to be in the publishing business-as traditional publishing shrinks? Will successful indies tell them what successful traditionally published authors used to tell indies who couldn't land a publisher, namely, "You're just not cut out for this business"?


I suspect they will be forced out of the market, or become very small players losing sales to those who are happy to take responsibility for more than writing.



> The only reason Amazon hasn't squeezed its indie suppliers so far is that the royalty rates provide a strong incentive to writers to forego the middle man. Second, and more important, are the low barriers to market entry that Amazon faces, even when there are no other players.


The only reason? Those are very powerful forces in markets. Perhaps these are some of the factors that overwhelm the willingness of writers to take small returns. Is there some reason to think these forces will go away?

Aint this a great country?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

cecilia_writer said:


> The fact that I find his writing so dense and wordy that I couldn't even get through this Guardian article is irrelevant.


Glad I'm not the only one. Made it about a paragraph in before my eyes glazed over. Maybe I've been in one too many overly long marketing meetings this week, but when I see something like that I just want to scream "Get to the point!"

So, I guess I'm part of the problem he describes.


----------



## JETaylor (Jan 25, 2011)

Caddy said:


> I hope to take everyone by surprise and be one of the other three. No one's expecting a woman.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

When the walls are closing in, people can make even the silliest of things sound so profound.  

Let me try:

This is no longer just the age of information, it's the age of  content and interaction, and just like the market of the papered yesterday, history and the market will deem what's literature.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Judging by this, JF heads the cohort of those churning out the horsehockey of the apocalypse

_please don't work around our filters.... --Betsy_


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Hands up. How many of you have actually read the full essay/book excerpt? Complete with awkward translations of already awkward Karl Kraus passages? Though Franzen did tempt me to check out the original Kraus, which is more than anybody else has ever managed.

Anyway, those who've read the whole thing may have noticed that Franzen hates a lot of things in addition to Amazon. He also hates Apple and Windows, at least any version post 95, and Facebook and Twitter and blogs and modern life in general. And he takes a page from Karl Kraus, a turn of the century Austrian writer, who also hated modern life. Given the time he lived in and considering that Kraus saw both WWI, the post WWI poverty and the rise of Nazism (though he missed WWII, since he died in 1936), Kraus' pessimism was at least somewhat justified. Franzen's not so much.

As for Franzen's comments about Amazon, I suspect that Franzen has never lived in a place where there were no bookstores within easy reach or only bookstores with a very limited selection or only bookstores that only carried books in a language other than the one he preferred to read in. Though if Franzen purchased English language books during the time he spent in Berlin and Vienna in the 1980s, he may have noticed the very limited selection (What? You don't want to read V.C. Andrews, Victoria Holt or Danielle Steel. Well tough luck, read in German then) of English language books and the extortionate prices charged by the distributors. Situations like that are why Amazon is a god-send.

As for his worries about Amazon squeezing writers and leaving them unable to earn a living, the digital disruption may lower advances for established trad-published writers, including literary darlings like Jonathan Franzen. But it also gave thousands of writers who would otherwise not have been published at all, because their works were not a good fit for traditional publishing for some reason, a chance to publish and to be read. That's thousands of voices that would otherwise have gone unheard. Maybe Franzen doesn't think much of those voices and what they write, but that's not his call to make.

Besides, it's kind of ironic that Franzen clearly recognizes that Karl Kraus had the leisure to complain about each and everything, because he was ridiculously privileged, yet fails to recognize that he himself is just as privileged as Kraus. Franzen has never had problems finding the sort of books he wants to read at local bookstores. He got the big advances, the big PR push, probably didn't have much of a problem with rejections either or at least hasn't in a long time now. He's never been ignored or ridiculed for what he writes. He can't understand why anybody would want to order books from Amazon and why anybody would indie publish, because he's never been in that situation.

Besides, even in a changed publishing world there'll always be a place for the likes of Jonathan Franzen, the people who write a big book every couple of years that's automatically an event. Those people will probably stick with trad publishing and never self publish, but they will still exist and critics will still talk about them. Future Franzens may not be able to make a living at writing, but then very few literary writers ever did. Most of them work in academia and write on the side, so there's no change for them.

As for self-promotion, Franzen may frown on it (and isn't it telling that he makes a jab against Jennifer Weiner as a self-promoter, considering that Weiner along with Jodi Picoult complained about the excessive attention given by the trad pub world to Franzen's latest work, while Weiner and Picoult were dismissed as chick lit and women's fiction), but he promotes just like the rest of us. However, his blog tours are guest essays and articles and book excerpts like this one at the _Guardian_, his conventions are the big book fairs, his ARCs go to big name reviewers, his reviews come from the _New York Times_ rather than from Amazon reviewers. And maybe he didn't set any of these things up and doesn't have a clue how to do it, but Franzen is smart. He can learn, just like we did.

Besides, I'm far more offended by the passage about the penny pinching Germans who actually bent down to pick up the small change that Franzen casually dropped onto the train platform. Because I am German and I am one of those people who will always bent down for a lost coin. That's how I was raised. I also know that picking up lost coins is not as common in the US. I saw it myself as a kid in the US, when my Mom and I would walk across the parking lot of a big sports arena and I would pick up all the coins that people like Franzen, people who didn't care, had lost. I was five years old and those coins made me happy, because they supplemented my pocket money and bought me toys and candy. Which is a good metaphor for the whole situation, I think. Because while the likes of Franzen may sneer at Amazon bestseller rankings and self-pub sales in the two, three or four figures and five star reviews from people who do not work for the _New York Times_ like Franzen sneered at the people who picked up the coins he so casually threw away, those things make us as happy and supplement our incomes as much as those discarded coins in the parking lot did for me. And some of us like Hugh or Holly or Bella or Elle or Dalya/Mimi or Joe or Russell find out that those spilled coins can actually add up to a fortune.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

brie.mcgill said:


> Has anyone sold one million units were pure hucksterism?


John Locke

[URL=http://davidmcgowanauthor]http://davidmcgowanauthor.com/2012/09/01/the-murky-world-of-paid-reviews-the-john-locke-scandal/[/url]


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

WHDean said:


> I wonder how cute Bezos will be when the "Zon" starts squeezing its suppliers. For some reason, people assume royalties will remain the same for all eternity. Why would they? What incentive does Amazon have to keep them the way they are when history shows that enough people will write enough books to supply the market no matter how small the return?


The incentive of knowing that others will jump into the gap&#8230; if they leave one.

The incentive of wanting to keep on to their reputation that you can get "all" books for the kindle. Already some writers, here on this board - granted, in certain niches - are reporting higher sales on the sites of other vendors. Some of them may decide in future not to bother with the Zon should royalties drop beneath a certain percentage.

Amazon's empire seems unassailable. It isn't. No empire is.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Amazon's empire seems unassailable. It isn't. No empire is.


Well said.

Not too long ago, IBM was the big boy on the block. Who cares about IBM today?


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

WHDean said:


> I wonder how cute Bezos will be when the "Zon" starts squeezing its suppliers. For some reason, people assume royalties will remain the same for all eternity. Why would they? What incentive does Amazon have to keep them the way they are when history shows that enough people will write enough books to supply the market no matter how small the return?


The incentive is that if Amazon squeezes us for royalties, then we'll move on to another platform that doesn't. It's quite simple really, and anyone that tries to claim that without Amazon a writer wouldn't be able to sell their books I laugh at. For about 40 straight minutes I laugh at people that say this.

And then I laugh for another hour before my wife has to take me to the emergency room because I'm having a laughter seizure.

Don't get infected with Amazon Derangement Syndrome. It is contagious, and it is a serious disease. It also causes me to laugh until a blood vessel in my head collapses. So...you know...please...don't try to kill me this way.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Blah blah. Embrace Luddites. Love the old machine, fear and hate the new one. Expect the worst. Ignore the inconsistencies in our own rationalizations. Bemoan the good old days that were never all that great.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Hands up. How many of you have actually read the full essay/book excerpt?


Hands in pockets. I skimmed. This stuff always reminds me if a mentor early in my career. I proudly submitted a multi-page feasibility study for a project, and he threw it over his shoulder.

When I looked a bit puzzled, he said, "You expect me to read all that crap just to find out you don't know what you're talking about? Say it all In one paragraph right up front. Then I can decide if its worth wasting my time on the rest."



> Besides, I'm far more offended by the passage about the penny pinching Germans who actually bent down to pick up the small change that Franzen casually dropped onto the train platform. Because I am German and I am one of those people who will always bent down for a lost coin.


This American regularly picks up the coins. Way down deep somewhere, I know it's horribly bad luck to pass them by. I figure all money is related, and I don't want to p*ss any of them off.



> This is no longer just the age of information, it's the age of content and interaction, and just like the market of the papered yesterday, history and the market will deem what's literature.


There should be an invoice attached to that.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Zelah Meyer said:


> I'm working on the assumption that Amazon (and any other ebook retailer in a position to do so) will ultimately lower author royalties if they can. It's one of the reasons I'm keen to publish on multiple platforms. That's not personal though, it's business. It's also NO different to what trad pubs have done to authors for decades!
> 
> Even if (in a highly improbable worst-case scenario) all publishing outlets made it impossible for indie authors to make any money selling via them, there would still be ways to earn money from your writing - as long as you don't sign a crazy contract.


This is one of the most dangerous things a human being can do...which is to assume something ridiculous based on...absolutely zero fact. Some douche writers who are trad-pubbed are not fact machines, they are scare-mongers shilling for the big pub and the NY elite.

However, as per my previous post, I laugh until I have a mini-stroke when people _assume_ things that have no basis in fact other than what some guy said without any evidence or facts to back up such claims.

Amazon Derangement Syndrome is already infecting others in this thread it seems. I did warn that it is contagious. 
[me=AngryGames]puts on surgical mask to keep the ADS bacteria away from mucous membranes and open cuts[/me]



WHDean said:


> To call it "fear," I'd actually have to be afraid something. Since I'm not, it's not fear. (But thanks for the free exam.)
> 
> The only reason Amazon hasn't squeezed its indie suppliers so far is that the royalty rates provide a strong incentive to writers to forego the middle man. Second, and more important, are the low barriers to market entry that Amazon faces, even when there are no other players. In the old world of publishing, starting a publishing house required a huge investment in capital and labour. Nowadays anyone can set up an e-book selling platform with inexpensive off-the-shelf software. If it Amazon cuts the suppliers' portion, the wider profit margins for competitors make market entry more lucrative.
> 
> But there's no reason to assume those conditions will last forever, or even for the foreseeable future. And that's not fear; it's economics.


THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

IT FELL ON MY HEAD!!!

I NOW HAVE A HEAD INJURY BASED ON...I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS BASED ON OTHER THAN PARANOIA!!!

WHY AM I YELLING!


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, Jon -- can I call you Jon? Thanks. -- Well, Jon, it's like this, see. There's a whole new world out there now. It's all cell phones that have better brains that building-sized computers. And home computers that you can cart around like a book. 

You can shop online for darn near anything you can think of, from any country you can find on a map. Speaking of maps, you don't even need those anymore, due to that thing called a GPS.

You must have missed the digital revolution living up there in your pretty white marble tower that you seem to think is a shining beacon of literature. Dude, get with it. Go out, see how other people live. 

Because while you sit up there, looking down your nose at other writers, there's a teaming mass of people who are publishing good books, getting loads of readers, and making money.

Honestly, you folks of the old-guard need to seek professional help. I bet you could ask a friend to find somebody for you on their smart phone.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> The incentive of knowing that others will jump into the gap&#8230; if they leave one.
> 
> The incentive of wanting to keep on to their reputation that you can get "all" books for the kindle. Already some writers, here on this board - granted, in certain niches - are reporting higher sales on the sites of other vendors. Some of them may decide in future not to bother with the Zon should royalties drop beneath a certain percentage.
> 
> Amazon's empire seems unassailable. It isn't. No empire is.


I don't disagree. As I mentioned later in the thread, Amazon has pressure from the low barriers to market entry and a few others things. But this state of affairs isn't inherent in the market-it's not a law like the relation between supply, demand, and price. Things can change tomorrow.

Now, I'm not opposed to making hay while the sun shines, far from it. But the winter's always coming (to borrow a phrase), and I want to be ready like the ant, not sleeping like the grasshopper, because I drank too much Indie Revolution Kool-Aid.*

(*Two sentences, four metaphors.)



AngryGames said:


> THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
> 
> IT FELL ON MY HEAD!!!
> 
> ...


Oh no! Not the _argumentum ad all caps_! I wondered how long I could hold out before someone invoked this most powerful and persuasive of all strategies. Ah, well. I shall concede defeat and leave this thread to you and your superior orthography.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I have deleted this post as I do not consent to the new Terms of Service that Vertical Scope are attempting to retrospectively apply to our content.  I am forced to manually replace my content as, at time of editing, their representative has instructed moderators not to delete posts or accounts when users request it, and Vertical Scope have implied that they will deal with account deletion requests by anonymising accounts, which would leave personally identifying information in my posts.

I joined under the previous ownership and have posted over the years under different Terms of Service.  I do not consent to my name, content, or intellectual properties being used by Vertical Scope or any other entity that they sell or licence my data to.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

For anyone who's interested, stop by TPV. Fisking in progress.



> First, the idea that successful authors these days are hucksters


I thought that was a nice touch, rolling out the biggest anti-indie meme 2012 had to offer. Successful indie = system "gaming" scammer.



> More writers seems to be making a living from their work than any time in history. How is that bad again?


Because it means that JF's exclusive club is becoming less important, and relevant, by the hour.



> That's because, I've read so many anti-Amazon articles by so many people


Some people never get tired of watching Youtube vids of skateboarders crush their junk while handrail sliding. And some people never get tired of bashing all things New Publishing.

It also seems that some media outlets never tire of promoting it either.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> This American regularly picks up the coins. Way down deep somewhere, I know it's horribly bad luck to pass them by. I figure all money is related, and I don't want to p*ss any of them off.


That's why I said it's not as common, not that it's uncommon (and there are plenty of Germans who don't pick up coins). Franzen's disdain for the penny pinching old lady who bent down in spite of a bad back to pick up the coins he had so casually dropped (an old lady who very likely had a tiny pension and for whom every single coin was valuable) just reminded me of all of those lost coins in the parking lot of the sports arena way back when.



Zelah Meyer said:


> I confess, I didn't even read the article. That's because, I've read so many anti-Amazon articles by so many people - unless I'm bored and fancy watching the arguments in the comments - it's just not worth my time.


Franzen's essay/book excerpt is not just an anti-Amazon rant. In fact, he wrote much more about Mac versus PC and about Karl Kraus than he wrote about Amazon. That's why I asked how many had actually read the whole thing.

And for the record, I can understand not having the time or desire to read it, because it is long and not all that interesting, unless you are a fan of Karl Kraus.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Franzen's essay/book excerpt is not just an anti-Amazon rant. In fact, he wrote much more about Mac versus PC and about Karl Kraus than he wrote about Amazon. That's why I asked how many had actually read the whole thing.


I confess that I've never heard of Karl Kraus either! 

By the way, it might be the large Jameson's whiskey I've just drunk to fight off a cold, but with all this talk of horsemen, I'm now thinking of this:


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Zelah Meyer said:


> I confess that I've never heard of Karl Kraus either!
> 
> By the way, it might be the large Jameson's whiskey I've just drunk to fight off a cold, but with all this talk of horsemen, I'm now thinking of this:


I suspect comparatively few people outside the German speaking countries have (and not all that many in the German speaking countries either, since Kraus is fairly obscure).

In fact, my main association for Karl Kraus was "that bunker guy", since our local theatre mounted a spectacular production of Karl Kraus' supposedly unperformable play _The Last Days of Mankind_ (mentioned in the article) in a massive WWII bunker that was once used to built submarines safe from falling bombs (a bunker so massive that attempts to blow up what is basically an eyesore failed).

There is probably a metaphor for the trad publishing industry, experiencing the last days of mankind huddled in bunker so massive it's undestroyable, in there.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

When the four horsemen arrive - Jeff (Bezos), Hugh, Miley, and Caddy - and Jonny Franzen can't get his new book published by a publisher, I wonder if he'll reconsider his position on ebooks and self-publishing.

JF also hates ebooks. Yet, every one of his weighty tomes is available in e-ink - either because he's happy to profit off something that he decries as ruining literature, or he's unable to stop his publisher from doing so.

I think the word "hypocrisy" applies here.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

I need someone to explain something to me. Franzen says he hates ebooks because of their impermanence. How does that make sense? If paper books are permanent, can he please give us all the books that we all thought were lost when the Library of Alexandria burned?

The greatest contribution of ebooks to literature is that they make books permanent. I can back up an ebook in a hundred different places. If my Kindle falls in the bathtub or into a fire, I haven't lost a single ebook. If Amazon closes up shop tomorrow, I haven't lost a single ebook. The only way ebooks can go away is if all technology ceases to exist. We no longer have to calculate shelf space in determining which books we preserve. Bugs, humidity, fire, water, and plain old time can't deteriorate an ebook.

If anyone understands what he means by the permanence of paper books, would you mind sharing?

Also, for anyone just wanting the tidbits to do with Amazon, you can read this article instead: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/13/amazon-yakkers-braggers-jonathan-franzen


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

caethesfaron said:


> I need someone to explain something to me. Franzen says he hates ebooks because of their impermanence. How does that make sense? If paper books are permanent, can he please give us all the books that we all thought were lost when the Library of Alexandria burned?
> 
> The greatest contribution of ebooks to literature is that they make books permanent. I can back up an ebook in a hundred different places. If my Kindle falls in the bathtub or into a fire, I haven't lost a single ebook. If Amazon closes up shop tomorrow, I haven't lost a single ebook. The only way ebooks can go away is if all technology ceases to exist. We no longer have to calculate shelf space in determining which books we preserve. Bugs, humidity, fire, water, and plain old time can't deteriorate an ebook.


+1



> If anyone understands what he means by the permanence of paper books, would you mind sharing?


I think he means, "I dropped my ereader in the bathtubs and now the bookz are all gone, gone, gone! At least I can use the hair dryer on my paper copy of _Freedom_."


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

D.L. Shutter said:


> For anyone who's interested, stop by TPV. Fisking in progress.


What is this "TPV" of which you speak?


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

www.thepassivevoice.com

TPV

The man who runs it is 'The Passive Guy' or just 'PG'

It's a great aggregate site for news of interest to us authors. I'm surprised you've not been directed there already, but you is a busy dude. Check it out. It's good stuff, and the comments are almost always excellent quality.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> Oh no! Not the argumentum ad all caps! I wondered how long I could hold out before someone invoked this most powerful and persuasive of all strategies. Ah, well. I shall concede defeat and leave this thread to you and your superior orthography.


Oh no! The defense mechanism kicks in becomes disassociated from the sarcasm filter!


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

AngryGames said:


> www.thepassivevoice.com
> 
> TPV
> 
> ...


Oh, yeah! I met him in person once and asked him if I could have a hug. He was awesome and obliged.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

You know who hated hugs?  Karl Kraus.  Symbolic of the burgeoning bourgeois apocalypse, he would say.  More proof that Amazon sucks.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> Oh, yeah! I met him in person once and asked him if I could have a hug. He was awesome and obliged.


We get some pretty famous authors posting comments there rather often

*hint hint*

I think today I even actually gushed and called you 'the messiah' in a comment on an article about you.

Please don't sue me


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

superfictious said:


> You know who hated hugs? Karl Kraus. Symbolic of the burgeoning bourgeois apocalypse, he would say. More proof that Amazon sucks.


You win the thread with this.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> This American regularly picks up the coins.


This one does too. Mostly because I can't stand the thought of metal being wasted, especially copper. I think I have a mild problem. I was actually bothered by the image of Ragnar Danneskjold sending a shipment of copper to the bottom of the ocean in Atlas Shrugged even though it is of course fiction. It is like reverse cuprolaminophobia or something.


----------



## Robert Gregory Browne (Mar 10, 2011)

Zelah Meyer said:


> I'm working on the assumption that Amazon (and any other ebook retailer in a position to do so) will ultimately lower author royalties if they can. It's one of the reasons I'm keen to publish on multiple platforms. That's not personal though, it's business. It's also NO different to what trad pubs have done to authors for decades!


Amazon isn't a publisher (okay, it has a publishing wing, but that's not most of us are involved with). It's a distributor of published goods. I'm not sure what the cut is for retailers with goods like coffee makers and shoes, but I doubt it has changed much despite Amazon's success. And I don't see it happening with books, either. Amazon isn't paying us "royalties." They're merely charging a 30% fee for distributing our wares.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Mr. Franzen has the look and feel of a New York hothouse author--clever, talented, accomplished; a middle weight looking to punch above his weight class.  Like: Jonathan Safron Foer, who was fed milk made from sparrows' eggs, coddled and protected and nursed along the path to stardom by powerful friends.  Like: Jay McInerney, who deserved praise for Bright Lights, Big City, and hasn't punched above that since.

Ah, the life!  Living on Park Ave. south of 96th St.(for example), and posting a literary address in Union Square, in the offices of Farrar, Straus, Giroux.  Oh, the Proustean silences!  The Byronic solitude in forlorn castles!

I guess we do look like barbarians at the gates to Franzen.  Those who have been bruised by the world, and also drawn strength from the world.    There is rest for body and soul in the Franzen Hotel, but no special virtue in it.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Robert Gregory Browne said:


> I'm not sure what the cut is for retailers with goods like coffee makers and shoes, but I doubt it has changed much despite Amazon's success.


That's a good point. By now, Amazon is nowhere near being a new, fly-by-night Internet company like so many of the mid-to-late 1990s. The company has been around. It has a track record. I don't see other, non-publishing merchandisers and retailers and manufacturers and suppliers crying about Amazon cutting into their earnings. Maybe it's happened and I've just not noticed, but it's obviously not happened in any major way. The same can't be said for some companies which actually have physical store fronts.

Indie publishing is only a very small part of Amazon's business model. Amazon does _not _revolve around indie writers. Never has, never will. I'm not a huge Amazon fan, but I also don't buy into the conspiracy theory nonsense. When Amazon screws me over, then I'll worry about it and find some way to deal with it. Until then, I'm not going to sit and fret and worry about what Jeff Bezos might or might not be thinking. Too many other people already get paid big bucks for that, and I'm not one of them.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hmm? Another "bite the hand that feeds most of us" thread?

Golly, I never get tired of those...

...oh wait a second... yes, I do.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Oh, I agree on that last. I loved THE CORRECTIONS. Haven't read anything else of his. I found this article to be pretentious, boring, and without a point.


He is a big name, and he can write, but I tried reading The Corrections and just could not get through it. 
As for the four horsemen - Nahh! 
While technology continues to change, there will continue to be new ways of delivering stories to the readers that want them. And while new patterns evolve, some of the first companies will capitalize on it while others will be forgotten.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Haven't read most of it, bookmarked it; but a thought-provoking, interesting writer, and I agree with Dalya's take. And was moved by this quote:
"Maybe people will get as sick of Twitter as they once got sick of cigarettes. Twitter's and Facebook's latest models for making money still seem to me like one part pyramid scheme, one part wishful thinking, and one part repugnant panoptical surveillance."


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

The way I see it is that JF is just p*ssed off that the gatekeepers are gone and those he considers beneath him are not only publishing, but in many cases publishing well and hitting the NYTimes list. 

This dense essay is also designed to promote his new book which I'll be interested in seeing how well it does...the topic doesn't seem to have as much mass appeal as his earlier stuff.

Regarding Amazon lowering royalties. I'm not worried about it. I don't think it's likely to happen. Amazon doesn't need to do that and it wouldn't be a smart business decision, the resulting PR would be a nightmare. Plus as these other platforms grow and the slices of the income pie gets larger for authors, there's even less incentive to Amazon to give them a reason to leave. The more competition from other platforms the better as it's basic economics...supply and demand will keep royalties where they are or maybe even increase them. Wouldn't that be nice? Remember, Amazon is growing like crazy with all these added books. They don't need to change royalties.

Last I read, Bezos is worth about 20 Billion. So while Amazon as a company might not show a profit, it's because they keep plowing money back into the company, which drives up the stock price and Bezos has a lot of stock. I believe he bought the washington post with his own money, not through Amazon.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Golly. I remember when you could wind up owning the Washington Post by starting out as a newspaper delivery boy, working before or after school. Now you gotta own Amazon.

What's the world coming to when a newspaper has to be owned by someone with money?


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Blah blah. Embrace Luddites. Love the old machine, fear and hate the new one. Expect the worst. Ignore the inconsistencies in our own rationalizations. Bemoan the good old days that were never all that great.
> 
> Did I miss anything?


Good summary.


----------



## Darren Wearmouth (Jan 28, 2013)

NathanWrann said:


> So Bezos is one of the four horsemen? Who are the other three?
> 
> I nominate Johannes Gutenberg.


I nominate a mysterious clown that keeps appearing on the streets of Northampton.

http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.uk/News/Northampton-News/Spooky-clown-mystery-grips-Northampton-14092013.htm


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> What is this "TPV" of which you speak?


Another TLA I didn't know either. 

thepassivevoice.com


----------



## bhazelgrove (Jul 16, 2013)

I read the article every last sentence about a week ago. What his is saying is that in the world of literary publishing the standards are being lowered or at least becoming extremely confused. It has nothing to do with selling. You can have fantastic reviews and not sell a book. And the conflation of selling with standards of literary merit are wrong. Selling does not mean your book is good or bad. It means it sells or doesn't sell.  But the assumption is that if your book is not selling then it is bad. Or that if you sold a million books your book has literary merit. It does not. Has Bezos been a good thing for publishing. Depends on what side of the literary fence you stand on.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

bhazelgrove said:


> Or that if you sold a million books your book has literary merit. It does not. Has Bezos been a good thing for publishing. Depends on what side of the literary fence you stand on.


It might have literary merit, it might not. Either way, if you sell a million books you're making a lot of readers happy, and for many writers that is the ultimate goal.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

What Bezos has done is create an environment where the author receives the lion's share of the income that the trad pub machine used to suck out of the equation. That's resulted in an unprecedented number of authors earning decent money, where in the past they either would have made none (because of being unpublished), or made peanuts as the machine took most of the cash.

I for one am critical of Amazon where I feel it's warranted, and wary of Pollyanna-ish views of them as a benevolent deity, however I also am the first to admit that if not for them, I'd be unpublished and uninterested in playing the query game. Some might argue that would be a good thing, and they're entitled to their opinion. I have nothing but respect for those who can bend words to their will, but the truth is that many readers are not particularly literate, and aren't seeking tomes designed to impress with the author's intellect. They want entertainment, which is what the majority of bestsellers on Amazon deliver. There have always been those who decry popular entertainment as base and pandering, and they're right. It is. And it also sells well if it strikes a chord. Some of the biggest selling authors of all time are marginally competent wordsmiths with pedestrian ideas. But their work resonated, and satisfied a need. So the world responded, and lavished them with adulation and riches. Those more competent in their craft railed then, as they rail now. 

Note that I'm not suggesting we celebrate illiteracy or marginal skill. What I'm saying is that the literary cognoscenti have always viewed popular fiction as beneath them. I completely understand the frustration when someone who can barely write a grocery list winds up on the bestseller list with single-sentence-paragraph tomes written at a first grade level. It's offensive to the part of me that's spent decades mastering my craft, such as it is. But the business person in me completely understands why that product sells, and who it's selling to. And the truth is that there are more of "them" than of "us." People Magazine sells a lot more than The Atlantic. It's just the way it is. To decry it is silly. Sure. World's going to hell in a handbasket. It has been for eons. I'm pretty sure my next screed ain't gonna change the trend. Nor is Franzen's diatribe. 

Amazon's not the problem (if problem there is). The problem is us. Fortunately, this problem pays some of us handsomely. For that, I'm grateful to Amazon, and to readers willing to sully their intellect with the likes of me. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened absent Amazon. So more love than hate from my end. For now. Ah wanna have Bezos' baaahbeees.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2013)

Basically, this commentary is written from a very narrow perspective. Did I mention assumptions? Yeah, that, too.



> What happens to the people who want to communicate in depth, individual to individual, in the quiet and permanence of the printed word, and who were shaped by their love of writers who wrote when publication still assured some kind of quality control and literary reputations were more than a matter of self-promotional decibel levels? As fewer and fewer readers are able to find their way, amid all the noise and disappointing books and phony reviews, to the work produced by the new generation of this kind of writer, Amazon is well on its way to making writers into the kind of prospectless workers whom its contractors employ in its warehouses, labouring harder for less and less, with no job security, because the warehouses are situated in places where they're the only business hiring.


In the first place, what makes him think indie authors don't feel this way? And I'm curious if this aversion to promotion extended to having his publishing house and others promote for him. He'd have more legitimacy if he found promotion once removed to be creating a circus-like atmosphere not befitting a serious author. But if he knowingly and willingly went along with the _"toutment"_ (a word I made up for this occasion), then he doesn't have much credibility.

Then there's the straw man argument about sales being linked to decibel levels. And his supporting documentation is where? I can think of some effective self-promoting geniuses who do sell lots of books. However, I can think of others who keep a lower profile that seem to be doing quite well. I believe it's more branding than shouting or "notice me" type marketing. What I mean by this is that if a self-promoter brands himself/herself as a brash, out there type of personality, the readers that like that personality will sample the author's books. However, the work can't disappoint or there is no momentum.

It's much like Patterson. I think of him as a brand. He offers a product that many readers love and delivers works safely in that wheelhouse. So I don't think that the theory that screaming at the top of one's lungs equates with readers purchasing works is at all accurate. A quiet author can do well. They'll attract readers responding to that quality if they're consistent and provided their product matches what they represent.

However, for the indies that are forced to do it all themselves, they're still competing with the traditional publishers that dominate the world of advertising. Publishing houses have the money and wherewithal to produce some pretty monumental results. They know the buttons to push and control those channels so I have no idea why he's complaining. When looked at from this perspective, it's amazing that some self-published authors are achieving what they are.

Without delving any deeper, I feel he's entitled to his opinion. It seems to stoke the "us" against "them" line in the sand that separates legitimate authors from those not presented that crown by the governing body of experts. The fact that the title of expert was given to them by, well, them, is sort of strange.

And no, I don't think anyone that publishes a book is in the same league. So there is agreement. Traditional publishing did and does provide a filter. But ultimately, the reader gets to decide. I think Mr. F should be grateful that that's the way it's always going to be.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Whoa. Do I get another degree for slogging through that piece?

tl;dr: If you can't understand something, sneer.

B.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

On the first pages of _The Corrections_ the man uses _gerontocracy_ and _zoysia_ *and* not one but *two* semicolons.

He's a genius. We should all listen to him.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Maybe people will get as sick of Twitter as they once got sick of cigarettes. Twitter's and Facebook's latest models for making money still seem to me like one part pyramid scheme, one part wishful thinking, and one part repugnant panoptical surveillance."


We can soon get a prertty good reading on that. Twitter has filed for an IPO (Initial Public Offering). They will be offering shares in the company to the public.


----------



## Sophrosyne (Mar 27, 2011)

Just on a side note, one of the Catch-22 fallacies that I keep hearing repeated about self-published books is:

If books aren't selling, it's obvious they're crap and that's why no one wants them. If books are selling, it's obvious they're crap, but the author has somehow paid for truckloads of good reviews, so they are nothing more than hucksters conning readers out of their money.

WTF?

Why are traditionally published writers so quick to accuse indies of buying good reviews by the hundreds? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Not to mention, I don't think it's actually even possible. I've only ever heard of services, like Authors on the Cheap ARC program, where they will post honest reviews in exchange for a free e-copy of the book. But NOWHERE guarantees good reviews in exchange for cash. 

But that type of bullshit thinking is spreading to readers. I've seen readers leave bad reviews, just because the book has too many good reviews, so they must somehow be fake. Which is ridiculous.

As far as I know, the only authors who have gotten busted screwing with the review system, trashing their competition and faking their own reviews, were traditionally published authors. So, how did this twisted behavior get dumped on indies? I mean, I've seen a few newbie indies trash their competitors, but Amazon tries hard to nip that in the bud. And that type of thinking is bizarre anyway. If readers like a genre, the authors aren't in competition with each other -- readers can read faster than we can write. I always tell my readers about other authors in the same genre that they might like, and share book deals and freebies with them, so they can keep finding new favorite authors.

I have seen indies ask their friends and families to review their books, but that tends to be a very small number of overall reviews. IME, friends and family are usually the last people to get around to reading your books. And if they review you -- and that's a big if -- they usually mention the relationship to the author in the review.

But this type of argument Franzen uses is a bit of twisted logic and it sets up a no-win situation, where the only 'true' writer is traditionally published, since, in his opinion, if indies have good reviews -- even hundreds of good reviews -- they're obviously fake and the books are actually crap. And if they don't have hundreds of good reviews, they obviously suck, and the books are actually crap.

It's amazing how threatened some people feel at the thought that readers can actually curate their own material, know what they like, and leave honest reviews that tell other readers about their reading experience.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Sophrosyne said:


> Why are traditionally published writers so quick to accuse indies of buying good reviews by the hundreds? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Not to mention, I don't think it's actually even possible. I've only ever heard of services, like Authors on the Cheap ARC program, where they will post honest reviews in exchange for a free e-copy of the book. But NOWHERE guarantees good reviews in exchange for cash.


I'm not going to provide any links, but there were and are numerous pay-for-review outfits, and they are becoming better at their jobs, not worse. (There are NYTimes and Forbes articles discussing one company that was outed circa August 2012.) I have no idea what the going rates are, but on the website that came up on page two of my first Google search, reviews could be acquired for $25 per, with discounts offered for those purchasing over twenty.

Start doing the math on that. We're talking about 2K for every 100 hundred reviews. These prices seem high because independent authors aren't their usual customers. From the look of the testimonials offered, those would be the sellers of iPhone covers, expensive watches, and thousand dollar coats. All are high margin items that demand a heuristic decision making process on the part of the consumer. If and when these companies get caught, they can easily shift LLCs and product mixs. They're in-and-out sorts of businesses, and they have little to worry about their reputations.

But there are indeed authors happily paying these fees. I can think of a dozen obvious offenders of the top of my head. Some appear to like to burn money. Others clearly know what they're doing. And there is nothing new about this phenomenon. Around my neck of the woods, there is a company that exists for the sole purpose of gaming the NYTimes Bestseller list. For 20K+, they will execute book purchases all across the United States in order to trick the NYTimes into adding your title to their weekly list. And before that there were the fake pre-order schemes that caused B&N to require upfront payments, and the coupon schemes, and paying people to read your books in parks.

People that lack a certain moral flexibility are always surprised by these schemes, but _ambitus_ is a rather old word.

B.


----------



## Sophrosyne (Mar 27, 2011)

Wow. I'm just astounded. Although that does explain why I've seen good reviews for products that turn out to be cheaply made crap, and break when you try to use them. I'm just of the camp that thinks that money can be better spent trying to improve the product rather than buying fake reviews.

I guess I'm completely naive when it comes to this, because I would totally be shocked if I found an indie author going that route. Although it sounds like it does happen. What bugs the crap out of me is the growing assumption that all indie authors are that devoid of morals and have such little faith in their products. I hate that we're all being tarred and feathered with that brush, when it seems like it's only truly applicable to such a tiny minority.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

Like Scott Turow, Mr. Franzen should remove his books for sale from Amazon and burn any royalty checks he receives in the meanwhile from those sales.

Oh wait.  He can't because he's an indentured servant to his publishers who own his rights.

So maybe he should shut up because a lot of people think his books aren't that great.


----------



## Robert Gregory Browne (Mar 10, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> What Bezos has done is create an environment where the author receives the lion's share of the income that the trad pub machine used to suck out of the equation.


Back when I was considering getting out of trad pub and into self-pubbing, I had a "duh" moment. I was talking to my financial guy and told him that friends were making thousands a month self-publishing, more than they'd ever made before, and he just shrugged and said, "Of course they are. They're now getting all the money the publisher used to take."

I had to slap my forehead. I can be so dense sometimes.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Bob Mayer said:


> Like Scott Turow, Mr. Franzen should remove his books for sale from Amazon and burn any royalty checks he receives in the meanwhile from those sales.
> 
> Oh wait. He can't because he's an indentured servant to his publishers who own his rights.


It's possible that his masters made him write that "article."


----------



## Robert Gregory Browne (Mar 10, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> I'm not going to provide any links, but there were and are numerous pay-for-review outfits, and they are becoming better at their jobs, not worse.


 I'll provide a link:

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author-services/indie/?gclid=COmBo4y1zrkCFe1_QgodzlEAjw

I suppose since Kirkus is an industry stalwart, we have to assume they have only the best of intentions, right?


----------



## Sophrosyne (Mar 27, 2011)

Actually, Kirkus does NOT guarantee good reviews. So, it doesn't fit into the scam of good reviews for cash model.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> Like Scott Turow, Mr. Franzen should remove his books for sale from Amazon and burn any royalty checks he receives in the meanwhile from those sales.
> 
> Oh wait. He can't because he's an indentured servant to his publishers who own his rights.
> 
> So maybe he should shut up because a lot of people think his books aren't that great.


----------



## Ashy (Jul 2, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> As I read this excerpt, one word kept popping into my head - "RESPONSIBILTY."
> 
> The writer doesn't want to be responsible for marketing or promotion.
> The writer doesn't want individuals to be responsible for what books are published - he wants to give that responsibility to someone else.
> ...


^^^THIS. So much this.

Preach on, Joe.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Robert Gregory Browne said:


> I'll provide a link:
> 
> https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author-services/indie/?gclid=COmBo4y1zrkCFe1_QgodzlEAjw
> 
> I suppose since Kirkus is an industry stalwart, we have to assume they have only the best of intentions, right?


The scandal really isn't that old - John Locke was busted on
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/book-reviewers-for-hire-meet-a-demand-for-online-raves.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Robert Gregory Browne (Mar 10, 2011)

Sophrosyne said:


> Actually, Kirkus does NOT guarantee good reviews. So, it doesn't fit into the scam of good reviews for cash model.


Don't fall into the trap of thinking that this excuses them. The fallacy here is that you're still paying, and Kirkus now has a vested interest in continuing to draw in paying customers. They can't do that if they continually give bad reviews now, can they?

I don't care what they claim. As long as they're taking money for reviews from _the author of the books they're reviewing,_ there is a conflict of interest and it's ethically suspect.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Robert Gregory Browne said:


> As long as they're taking money for reviews from _the author of the books they're reviewing,_ there is a conflict of interest and it's ethically suspect.


So is your argument that this practice would be hunky-dory if they were taking money for reviews from the publisher of the books they were reviewing, rather than the author?

I'd say that's splitting the hair a bit too fine.

Heck, when you think about it, even accepting advertising from all those publishers ethically compromises Kirkus.

In an ideal set-up, Kirkus would be set up like Consumer Reports: non-profit, accepts no advertising.

But then how would they pay their staff and expenses?

I think the ethical stuff here goes deeper than the drive-by knee-jerk reaction. That's all I'm trying to get across.


----------



## thomaskcarpenter (May 17, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Go buy an island in the Caribbean and stomp around in a military outfit, please. It'll suit you.


Haha. 

I think JF's rant falls into another long line of "there's only one way to do business and it's MINE". Old media doesn't go away, but it does get smaller and have to cater to a different group of consumers. Albums still get produced and purchased. Obscure literary novels will still get produced by for-the-love small press. Hot-rod squirellpunk fiction will find a narrow - very narrow - niche and survive. We're living and working through the fracturization of the book market. The question will not be what forms of media will survive (it all will), but what business model will work best to support that slice of media.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

Sophrosyne said:


> Why are traditionally published writers so quick to accuse indies of buying good reviews by the hundreds? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Not to mention, I don't think it's actually even possible.


That's how John Locke got a bunch of his reviews. You can go on Fiverr right now and buy a bunch of reviews. Google "buy book reviews" and you'll come across dozens of websites that sell reviews (some going so far as to charge extra if you want variable star ratings to make them look more authentic). There are Facebook groups that do review swaps. It happens all the time. It's why Amazon routinely does their mysterious review purges where thousands of reviews vanish from the site.

Kirkus is a different animal only because they ONLY charge indies. My beef with Kirkus is that they treat indies like red-headed stepchildren (no offense to any red headed stepchildren around) and charge indies for a service that they perform freely for trade publishers.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Heck, when you think about it, even accepting advertising from all those publishers ethically compromises Kirkus.


Having worked in both newspapers and other media, the advertising departments are generally completely isolated from the editorial department. That's why you will see critical news articles about WalMart hiring practices on page A6 and on page B2 you will see a full page ad for WalMart. So long as there is a clear line of demarcation between the departments, there is no compromise. It only becomes an issue when the person handling the ad placement is the same person handling the reviews.

This is why Sarbanes-Oxley requires the separation of duties in accounting functions to avoid potential ethical problems with corporate accounting practices.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

Just to clarify, Bezos CANNOT be one of the Four Horsemen because he is in fact the Antichrist (I thought we established this a while ago?) The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse would be his heralds, so Hugh can totally be a Horseman if he wants to.  I figure Konrath would be one as well. Just have to identify the other two...


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

_The barbarians are coming! Gatekeepers! Gatekeepers! Man the gates!

No, the gatekeepers! Where are the gatekeepers? How will I survive without them to protect me?_

I must admit, this is probably good PR, since I would never have heard of Franzen without his crazy rants. But they've never given me any incentive to want to read one of his books.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

Edward M. Grant said:


> I must admit, this is probably good PR, since I would never have heard of Franzen without his crazy rants. But they've never given me any incentive to want to read one of his books.


The man is a Pulitzer finalist, National Book Award winner, and was on the cover of _Time_ magazine. Methinks he has other things to worry about than whether or not you have ever heard of him...

In all seriousness, agree or disagree with his position. His points are certainly fair game. But this tendency of indies to dismiss every critic of Amazon as a hack, "jealous" or desperate for attention is really petty. At some point maybe we should just take the chip off of our shoulders and stop assuming every trade author is a drooling moron because they don't want to self-publish or don't want to kiss Bezos' backside?

I mean, I love Amazon just as much as any other consumer. I have two Kindles, a Prime account, an affiliate account, I use KDP, Createspace, and ACX. I don't hate Amazon. But I also don't blindly assume Bezos has my best interests at heard nor do I blindly condemn anyone who questions Bezos long term plans. It is a GOOD thing to challenge people and companies in power. Such challenges keep them from becoming complacent. It reminds them people are watching and they are not invulnerable. _Criticism* is healthy_, even if you don't always agree with it. If for no other reason than it makes you stop and think about your own position for a moment.

*And before someone says it, I mean criticism as in _critical thinking_. Not trolling or spammers or internet bullies.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Indeed. Like whether, if publishers disappear, he'll be able to get any of that publicity in future.


But this is my point: publishers aren't going anywhere. I don't know why indies keep repeating this myth. Your dismissal of his position is based on the logical fallacy that all the trade publishers will eventually fold up shop and every author will be forced to self-publish. The names may change and some will merge and others will be formed new. But the overall existence of publishers isn't going to vanish from the face of the earth.



> But critics rarely get anywhere by calling them 'one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse'. It just makes the critic look like a nutter.


We are all writers here. I assume people know the difference between figurative and literal interpretations of such statements.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

It's rather amusing, though, that this is Jonathon "How I Lied About Fiction Being A Memoir On Oprah Winfrey" Franzen calling out self-publishers for their dishonesty with the review system. Or am I misremembering?


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

Christa Wick said:


> It's rather amusing, though, that this is Jonathon "How I Lied About Fiction Being A Memoir On Oprah Winfrey" Franzen calling out self-publishers for their dishonesty with the review system. Or am I misremembering?


I _think_ that you might be misrembering.

I think that this is Jonathon "I'm so embarrassed that Oprah likes me" Franzen.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

jljarvis said:


> Are you thinking of James Frey's _A Million Little Pieces_?


Yes - A Million Little Pieces. I get Franzen and Frey confused. So Frey is sort of the "double douche" with Million scandal and parasitic work for hire book factory, I guess.

Thank you, JL


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

Edward M. Grant said:


> That's what I used to think. But there's an interesting post on TPV today about trade publishers pulling out of New Zealand, so the country could soon be down to just Random-Penguin and a couple of small, local publishers.
> 
> Today's publisher's darling can easily be tomorrow's 'where did they go?'


NZ has a population of around what? 3-4 million total? That is about half the Greater Philadelphia metropolitan area (otherwise called the Delaware Valley around these parts ). Perspective is important. Pulling physical locations out of New Zealand is not the same thing as closing down completely. From what I understand, some are just consolodating their businesses into their Australian counterparts. My understanding is that those publishers in NZ were producing NZ-specific titles. Demand for NZ specific titles is down and no longer justifies NZ specific offices. It's like if a publisher was publishing ************* specific titles. If there is no market for NJ specific titles, there is no reason to keep an office in NJ. Those publishers will still exist in some capacity, and still be selling books in NZ. They just don't have physical locations there. My workplace recently closed two assembly plants and moved that business to other locations. My company isn't in any financial trouble at all, I assure you. So I just don't see this as a sign of the end times for the publishing industry. Sounds like normal corporate business practices to me.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

All I ask is that they never sell my books in New Jersey.

Or was that anywhere outside of New Jersey?

*sigh*

Now I have to go re-do my will....


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In all seriousness, agree or disagree with his position. His points are certainly fair game. But this tendency of indies to dismiss every critic of Amazon as a hack, "jealous" or desperate for attention is really petty. At some point maybe we should just take the chip off of our shoulders and stop assuming every trade author is a drooling moron because they don't want to self-publish or don't want to kiss Bezos' backside?


Indeed.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Having worked in both newspapers and other media, the advertising departments are generally completely isolated from the editorial department. That's why you will see critical news articles about WalMart hiring practices on page A6 and on page B2 you will see a full page ad for WalMart. So long as there is a clear line of demarcation between the departments, there is no compromise. It only becomes an issue when the person handling the ad placement is the same person handling the reviews.
> 
> This is why Sarbanes-Oxley requires the separation of duties in accounting functions to avoid potential ethical problems with corporate accounting practices.


We have only the word of the newspaper that they are completely isolated. There are many things happening in companies that are not visible to most of the employees.



> But this tendency of indies to dismiss every critic of Amazon as a hack, "jealous" or desperate for attention is really petty.


I dont know if he is a crank, jealous, or desperate. I dont know him at all. I do know the ideas presented in the article dont consider economic history and observable operation of markets. I do notice a tendency in many critics of Amazon to reason to conclusions that are not supported by history and observation. Im still waiting for a real world example of a retail monopoly. Id love to see one in the wild.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Edward M. Grant said:


> That's what I used to think. But there's an interesting post on TPV today about trade publishers pulling out of New Zealand, so the country could soon be down to just Random-Penguin and a couple of small, local publishers.
> 
> Today's publisher's darling can easily be tomorrow's 'where did they go?'


We probably have to distinguish between a significant reduction in the publishers market share of fiction, and the complete extinction of publishers. Many respond that publishers will always be around. I agree. But I find it far more interesting to look at how much of the market they will control rather than the fact that they will not be extinct.

We can see they are losing market share. The simple fact that independents are selling books means publishers have lost market share. They will continue to lose market share if independent sales growth outpaces total growth in book sales.

It gets more interesting if we just look at fiction. Independents have take a significant share of the market from publishers. There is nobody else they could have taken it from.

A few months ago, David Gaughran did a very clever analysis of independent market share on Amazon by correlating various published lists. I recommend it to anyone interested.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> otherwise called the Delaware Valley around these parts Cheesy


I never noticed your location before. What part of NJ?

Missing real pizza and cheesesteaks.


----------



## Maggie Dana (Oct 26, 2011)

How do you pronounce Bezos, anyway?


----------



## Robert Gregory Browne (Mar 10, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> So is your argument that this practice would be hunky-dory if they were taking money for reviews from the publisher of the books they were reviewing, rather than the author?


 Hell no. Anytime money changes hands, there's a conflict of interest. If Kirkus or any other review service is taking money rather than simply ARCs, then I consider any review that comes out of that arrangement to be suspicious if not outright fraudulent.

I honestly have no idea how Kirkus makes money with their reviews other than the indie part, which they push.

The practice would be hunky-dory in either case if there was a disclaimer on each review that said, "The author (or publisher) has paid us to provide you with this unbiased review." Then it's up to the reader to decide whether or not to trust that review.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> " Anytime money changes hands, there's a conflict of interest."


Perhaps anytime something of value changes hands there is conflict of interests.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2013)

D.L. Shutter said:


> I never noticed your location before. What part of NJ?
> 
> Missing real pizza and cheesesteaks.


South ********, about 20 minutes from Philly. Want me to go across the bridge and get you a cheesesteak from Pat's? I could FedEx it too you lol
(though I cannot promise the condition it would be in when it got to your house. Considering the amount of grease and cheese wiz involved, I'd probably have to ship it as a hazardous commodity!)


----------



## Nancy Beck (Jul 1, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> South Jersey, about 20 minutes from Philly. Want me to go across the bridge and get you a cheesesteak from Pat's? I could FedEx it too you lol
> (though I cannot promise the condition it would be in when it got to your house. Considering the amount of grease and cheese wiz involved, I'd probably have to ship it as a hazardous commodity!)


Ah, a couple more Jersey people here...although I'm from the _evil_ north  (but I live in western NJ, not too far from Easton). Both of my brothers live in South Jersey, though.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Maggie Dana said:


> How do you pronounce Bezos, anyway?


I think it's bay-zos.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> South Jersey, about 20 minutes from Philly. Want me to go across the bridge and get you a cheesesteak


That's crazy. I hail from the Williamstown/Turnersville area, have worked in Blackwood and Marlton, went to Camden County College, I even remember when Deptford Mall had a water fountain.

And I actually prefer Geno's to Pat's whenever I get down to 9'th and Passayunk, but thanks.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2013)

D.L. Shutter said:


> And I actually prefer Geno's to Pat's whenever I get down to 9'th and Passayunk, but thanks.


A good way to start an argument in the office is to ask people which is better. Can get the office riled up for a good hour over that (not that I troll my co-workers for my own personal amusement or anything...)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> A good way to start an argument in the office is to ask people which is better. Can get the office riled up for a good hour over that (not that I troll my co-workers for my own personal amusement or anything...)


Julie (Bards and Sages) or Lynn (Red Adept): Both are publishers. Both are editors. But the big question is: Who cooks the better homemade pizza?

Discuss.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> How do you pronounce Bezos, anyway?


Like bumblebee, but you draw out the "'E" so it sounds like Beeeezos.

That way it sounds more Eeeeevil.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2013)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> ***** (Bards and Sages) or Lynn (Red Adept): Both are publishers. Both are editors. But the big question is: Who cooks the better homemade pizza?
> 
> Discuss.


Probably Lynn. My oven is shot and needs to be replaced. I try to bake something it comes out half burned and half raw.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Probably Lynn. My oven is shot and needs to be replaced. I try to bake something it comes out half burned and half raw.


One word: rotation!


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

To return to the OP... 

Here's Jennifer Weiner's response to Franzen's article: 
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114762/jennifer-weiner-responds-jonathan-franzen


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Sara Rosett said:


> To return to the OP...
> 
> Here's Jennifer Weiner's response to Franzen's article:
> http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114762/jennifer-weiner-responds-jonathan-franzen


Love it!


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Sara Rosett said:


> To return to the OP...
> 
> Here's Jennifer Weiner's response to Franzen's article:
> http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114762/jennifer-weiner-responds-jonathan-franzen


Thanks for sharing that.

As I read it, along with other criticisms by novelists of Franzen's book excerpt, I recalled the blowback caused by the Tom Wolfe manifesto, "Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast," in the November 1989 issue of Harper's:

http://www.lukeford.net/Images/photos3/tomwolfe.pdf

It caused quite a stir at the time and boosted sales of Wolfe's then two-year old novel The Bonfire of the Vanities. A cynic could argue that simple provocation as marketing was Franzen's intent. Why bother with Facebooking, Tweeting, blogging, yakking and bragging when you can drop a giant turd on your fellow novelists' heads and get them to do the heavy lifting for you?


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2013)

Mike McIntyre said:


> It caused quite a stir at the time and boosted sales of Wolfe's then two-year old novel The Bonfire of the Vanities. A cynic could argue that simple provocation as marketing was Franzen's intent. Why bother with Facebooking, Tweeting, blogging, yakking and bragging when you can drop a giant turd on your fellow novelists' heads and get them to do the heavy lifting for you?


Faux outrage is unfortunately a rather common marketing "technique" these days. Both it and its evil twin, pity marketing (playing the victim in order to generate sympathy and pity sales) are a pox upon the internet in general.

Of course, isn't Weiner by extension also playing the game? I didn't read the article, but I don't need to. I already know what it says. _It says the exact opposite of Franzen._ The only PURPOSE for her article is to take the polar opposite view and thus garner the "support" of those who disagree with Franzen. Nothing in her article will actually be meant to change anyone's mind. It is preaching to the choir and playing the role of the "champion" for everyone who was mad or annoyed by Franzen's article. Truth be told, if we accept the point that Franzer merely made his post as a play at faux outrage, then by extension Weiner is simply engaging in the same on the other side of the argument.


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> So Bezos is one of the four horsemen? Who are the other three?
> 
> I nominate Johannes Gutenberg.


Bob from Accounting. I always suspected him.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Truth be told, if we accept the point that Franzer merely made his post as a play at faux outrage, then by extension Weiner is simply engaging in the same on the other side of the argument.


Get out of my head!  I was about to post a similar sentiment, but I'm not as nimble of mind and keyboard as you. Also, I was occupied re-re-re-rereading the Wolfe essay, which, judged only on moving provocative words around the page, is miles beyond Franzen's piece.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

sarbonn said:


> Bob from Accounting. I always suspected him.


Bob again? Man, that b****** shows up everywhere!


----------

