Rachel Neumeier's Blog, page 276

Publishing and profitability

Here’s a post by Mike Shatzkin: Deep in the weeds of publishing economics, that I kinda wish the Big Five publishers would all take to heart:

[A] more precise statement of the reality of this math is that a few books deliver margins that exceed the house’s overall overhead percentage and that many, if not most, do not.

Here’s why this matters. It makes a house see specific titles as “unprofitable” even though the financial results of publishing them are actually indispensible to the profits of the house. Let’s unpack that a bit.

My father, Leonard Shatzkin, who is the person who long ago laid out this framework for publishing economics, suggested that every house that believes that assigning a percentage for “overhead” to the calculation of title profitability do the following exercise. Recalculate last year’s business but throw out — pretend you didn’t publish — all the books this overhead-inclusive analysis would call “unprofitable”. You lose all the direct revenues and you lose all the direct costs. And then you recalculate your overall performance.

What would have happened? You would have lost your shirt! … it is a mistake to require the minimum overhead contribution to equal the house’s average overhead contribution in order to deem a particular book “profitable”. In fact, if you think about that for even a couple of minutes, it seems nuts.

Here’s where 99.9% of all authors sigh and wish that their publisher’s financial people read this and believed it.

Shatzkin goes on to explain how his father’s conception of how to better calculate the profitability of specific titles led to the rise of St. Martin’s: Tom McCormack was an editor at Doubleday when my father was there in the 1950s inventing Dolphin Books, one of the first trade paperback imprints in a major hardcover house. McCormack landed the CEOship of St. Martin’s in 1969. Over the next three decades, McCormack built a publishing powerhouse which is now the backbone of Macmillan.

Click through and read the whole thing if you’re interested. The post may make you want to tear your hair, but it’s not that long.

Please Feel Free to Share:

Reading books – markedly more than periodicals – appears to deliver a noticeable ‘survival advantage’

I totally believe this article in the Guardian:

Respondents were separated into those who read for 3.5 hours or more a week, those who read for up to 3.5 hours a week, and those who didn’t read at all, controlling for factors such as gender, race and education. The researchers discovered that up to 12 years on, those who read for more than 3.5 hours a week were 23% less likely to die, while those who read for up to 3.5 hours a week were 17% less likely to die.

Isn’t that interesting? You know, one tidbit I remember from reading a book about the Nun Study was that women who showed high verbal acuity as young adults wound up developing the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease much less often, even if their brains looked like they ought to have shown symptoms. Yeah, Wikipedia says, “Roughly 80% of nuns whose writing was measured as lacking in linguistic density went on to develop Alzheimer’s disease in old age; meanwhile, of those whose writing was not lacking, only 10% later developed the disease.” That’s part of the bit I remembered. I wonder if that’s connected to the result found here?

This article goes one, Bavishi said that the more that respondents read, the longer they lived, but that “as little as 30 minutes a day was still beneficial in terms of survival”.

The paper also specifically links the reading of books, rather than periodicals, to a longer life. “We found that reading books provided a greater benefit than reading newspapers or magazines. We uncovered that this effect is likely because books engage the reader’s mind more – providing more cognitive benefit, and therefore increasing the lifespan,” Bavishi said.

Well, speaking of verbal acuity, I do wonder about that use of the word uncovered. Also, that sounds like pure speculation to me. All the proposed survival advantages in the article sound a bit iffy to me, actually. Still, nice to think that everyone checking out this blog post — I’m sure you all read books for over 3.5 hours per week, yes? — is statistically likely to enjoy a long life of reading books.

I got this link via The Passive Voice blog, btw.

Please Feel Free to Share:

Oh hey, look what’s out —

Via File 770, I see that the latest Penric novella is out!

Cool!

Of the four novellas so far . . . well, the first is hard to beat, then I liked the second not quite so much, then I loved the third. Which kinda ended on, if not a cliffhanger as such, the next thing to it. So I’m really looking forward to this one.

Incidentally, when I went to Amazon and searched for Bujold, this novella did not come up. When I used the link from File 770, it did. You may need to look for the actual title, or hey, click here.

Please Feel Free to Share:

Which book should you try next?

Oh, yeah, you will totally recognize most of these titles. A lot of them, anyway. But I was playing with this thing where you can make flowcharts and I made this one to try it out and see how it worked. It was pretty easy, really. I used this site called Creately, signed up for the free version to try it out, found a suitable template, and changed stuff around till it looked more or less like I wanted it to.

Check it out — you can click on the image to blow it up to full size:

There you go. I’m pretty pleased. Next time I want to make a flowchart, by golly, I will know how.

Also, if you haven’t already read all these titles, well, here they are: the answer to What You Should Read Next. Wide-ranging, with some published ages ago and some just out last year.

Not seeing anything new here and yet you still want an answer to the question of What You Should Read Next? Well, it turns out there are more internet quizzes for that than you might expect.

For example, this one at Pure Wow. Did it pick a title that appeals to me? Well, no.

How about this one at Just the Right Book? (Scroll down past the subscription panel and there is the quiz). Anyway, no.

This quiz is for YA fans. Did it do better? … Not really. This one in particular assumes I watch tv and know about celebrities. I kinda picked random answers for about a third of the questions.

Quizzes are fun, though. Maybe I’ll figure out how to do a quiz next, now that I’ve got flowcharts.

Please Feel Free to Share:

Good News Tuesday

Okay, I forgot about this last week . . . President’s Day made me lose track of the days. But back to good news posts this week!

In medicine:

Drug combination defeats dengue, Ebola in mice, study finds

Which is weird because these are both cancer drugs so why expect them to be effective against nasty viruses? Also apparently dengue fever and ebola are very different from each other. Nevertheless:

“We’ve shown that a single combination of drugs can be effective across a broad range of viruses — even when those viruses hail from widely separated branches of the evolutionary tree,” said the study’s senior author, Shirit Einav, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases and of microbiology and immunology.

Certainly good news, especially if we see another outbreak of ebola any time soon.

Here’s another excellent development:

Is a new class of painkillers on the horizon?

Scientists are chasing a new lead on a class of drugs that may one day fight both pain and opioid addiction. It’s still early days, but researchers report that they’ve discovered a new small molecule that binds selectively to a long-targeted enzyme, halting its role in pain and addiction while not interfering with enzymes critical to healthy cell function. The newly discovered compound isn’t likely to become a medicine any time soon. But it could jumpstart the search for other binders that could do the job.

Speaking as someone who deals with chronic pain, usually but not always low-level pain … faster, please.

Moving on to cool stuff:

Ancient Giant Penguin Unearthed in New Zealand

We’re all penguin fans, right?

The newly-discovered bird waddled the Earth during the Paleocene epoch. … It was about 5 feet (1.5 m) tall…

*I’m* hardly over five feet tall! How wonderful, a penguin nearly my height!

Another neat paleontological find:

This telltale tail shows dinosaur feathers in ‘exquisite detail’ after 99 million years

This was not the first time that paleontologists examined feathers trapped in Cretaceous amber. But without underlying body parts, doubt remained that the plumage once sprouted from dinosaurs. This amber held eight vertebral segments as well as soft tissues. … X-ray images revealed that no ancient bird grew this tail. The tail tip belonged to a two-legged dinosaur called a theropod. “We can tell that this specimen came from a theropod dinosaur because the tail is flexible and the vertebrae articulate with each other, instead of being fused together to form a solid rod — which is a characteristic of modern birds and their closest relatives,” McKellar said. Specifically, the researchers hypothesized the animal was a type of dinosaur called a coelurosaur, and likely a juvenile.

Artistic interpretation of the little animal at the link.

Last, had you heard about this?

Seven Alien ‘Earths’ Found Orbiting Nearby Star

Seven rocky planets orbiting a nearby star may be roughly the size of Earth and could even be right for water—and maybe life—to adorn their surfaces, researchers announced Wednesday.

The planets, which circle a star called TRAPPIST-1 just 39 light-years away, are tucked together so tightly that they routinely spangle each others’ skies, sometimes appearing as shimmering crescents and at other times as orbs nearly twice as large as the full moon.

You know I won’t be satisfied with bacteria. I want jungles teeming with complicated creatures! But this is a promising start.

Please Feel Free to Share:

Spaceships and magic

Over at tor.com, a post by Judith Tarr about Andre Norton’s Moon of Three Rings

I really liked that one! Probably because it fell neatly between the period where I read nothing but animal stories and the period where I really got into fantasy. This is the one where one protagonist kinda accidentally lets his consciousness and self be transferred into the body of an animal. Of course it was the animal on the front cover that probably caught my eye.

Now, of course, I immediately am bothered by the weak topline and not-very-good croup. I think it’s out at the elbow, too. Ah, adulthood. I imagine the creature in Norton’s imagination was well-constructed and sound. I loved the way it looked as a child. I’d forgotten about this image, but now I recognize where various other doglike-but-not-dog animals in various unwritten stories have come from.

Other great stories where someone changes into a dog (a real dog, or nearly, rather than a doglike animal like the one in Norton’s book):

Dogsbody, by DWJ, obviously. Though there the person who changes into a dog was never human, but a luminary — a star.

Also, The Dog Days of Arthur Cane, by T. Ernesto Bethancourt. I loved that book and read it many times. This is a much more down-to-earth story of a normal teenager who gets turned into a shaggy-dog type of mutt. Really great story. Let me see . . . looks like it came out in 1976. Yeah, I’m sure it’s long fallen off everyone’s radar. Well, if you happen to have a kid who is into animals and dogs, see if you can find a copy. It’s pretty pricey as a secondhand book on Amazon, I notice, with a range from $12 to way over $200 (!).

I don’t know if I can think of any other person-turned-into-dog stories just this minute. Horses, yes. Dun Lady’s Jess by Doranna Durgin springs to mind, though in that case it was the horse who turned into a woman.

How about you all, anybody want to recommend a person-turns-into-animal or animal-into-person story?

Please Feel Free to Share:

Against readability

Here’s a post by Ben Roth at The Millions: Against readability

This is the part that caught my eye:

In 2008, Anheuser-Busch ran a series of perplexing ads extolling Bud Light’s “drinkability.” What could it mean to say that a beer is able to be drunk? That it won’t kill you? That it does not taste completely terrible? That it is liquid, and so will run down your throat so long as you remain at least vaguely upright?

Yep, that’s where I laughed. Roth goes on:

… I have been reminded of these Bud Light ads repeatedly since when perusing, of all things, book reviews, where “readable” has risen to become the preeminent adjective of praise. … What could it mean to say that a novel is able to be read? Composed of words that you can pass your eyes over one after another and comprehend? “Readable,” like “drinkable,” seems almost an insult: this book isn’t good, but you’ll be able to finish it.

This post is, I’d say, highly readable … and yes, okay, that term does sounds strange, in a way it didn’t before Roth got going. Fine, then: it’s an entertaining post, though not necessarily too persuasive. That is, I’m not too sure about the direction Roth takes.

“Readable” has become the chosen term of praise in our times precisely because so many of us find ourselves unable to concentrate as we once could or still aspire to. But to praise readability is to embrace the vicious feedback loop that our culture now finds itself in. Short on concentration, we give ourselves over to streams of content that further atrophy our reserves of attention.

Uh huh. We, who? One rather has the idea that Roth does not include himself in the group of people who “find ourselves unable to concentrate.” This particular use of the first person plural is a way of saying, “Not ME, of course, and possibly not you, dear reader, but those other people — the greater part of the unwashed masses.” It makes me suspect condescension lies at the heart of this post.

Anyway, Roth then goes on to talk about readable fiction, meaning undemanding fiction sort of masquerading as literary fiction, and I do indeed lose interest because, yeah, whatever, literary fiction.

But this whole thing reminds me of another current term: relatable. I don’t like it. Now I wonder if part of the reason I don’t much care for the term is that, similar to “readable,” it seems to offer praise without much substance. “Relatable” — able to be related to — is this saying the reader finds the characters easy to relate to, perhaps without much effort or thought? Is that a good thing?

It strikes me, in other words, as sometimes trying to be a synonym for “likable” without quite using the term.

Because likable always sounds like a way of saying nice, I find myself suspicious of character described that way. I know I’m not alone, either. You see comments about “likable” characters fairly often.

Well . . . drinkable, readable, relatable, likable . . . those are words I don’t find myself reaching for when trying to describe anything. Perhaps Roth got that much right: none of those “able” words seem to actually say much.

The converse of each word seems to communicate much more vigorously, on the other hand. If I say I found a book unreadable, that’s a strong statement. Funny how putting un- in front of any of those words says more than the words themselves.

Anyway, “readable” — have you noticed the word recently and do you agree with Roth that it is at best faint praise?

Please Feel Free to Share:

Your Friday dose of total cuteness

I snapped this picture this morning:

All together now: Awwwww.

They sorted themselves out, btw. I didn’t place each one in a separate bed.

That is, from left to right, Girl One, Boy, and Girl Two. Or, as we may now call them . . . drumroll please . . .

Anara Kimberlyn Rose (Kimmie), Anara Konstantine (Conner), and Anara Krystallyn Rose (Leda)

“Leda?” I hear you ask. I know, right? It went like this: She doesn’t seem like a Krystie. Or Krystal. Or Rosie. Maybe Lena. How do you pronounce Lena anyway? Leena? Layna? Lehna? You know what name I like that is sort of like Lena? … and there you go.

However, I have people coming to look at her (and the others) on Monday, and if they fall in love with her (and I like them), then they may be picking a name for her instead. She will not quiiite be available just yet. She is not quite old enough to go, for one thing. But also, I will shortly be taking the puppies up to St. L to visit Deb, their sire’s owner, who has five puppies one day older and one puppy five days younger (I know! It just happened to work out like a tongue twister.).

We will be evaluating all the puppies with the most! extreme! objectivity!

Or at least we will try. Objectivity is a challenge when you already know which puppies you would most like to keep. Our aim is to get a look at each puppy’s structure and confirm that the ones we want to keep do indeed have really good structure — that is, good length of neck and shoulder layback, good straight legs, correct pasterns, good toplines, good proportions, good tailset, good rear angulation, low set hocks, etc, etc. Etc. This takes two people, one to bait the puppy into stacking and standing and one to take pictures. Even with two people, it’s pretty hard sometimes! After evaluating nine puppies, we will both be exhausted, I’m sure.

I already know all three of my puppies are basically nice, with good proportions and good bone and pretty heads. Hopefully I will be deciding they are all VERY nice. Then hopefully none of them will freckle up or have their bites go off….if I were a ruthless show breeder, I would be hanging on to Leda until she was at least 16 weeks just in case Kimmie suddenly developed freckles or an iffy bite.

However, I think pet people deserve to get their puppies when they are still ultra-cute and will have the easiest possible adjustment. We shall see, but I will most likely be letting Leda go earlier than that.

Yes, it will be hard! But when you are housetraining three puppies simultaneously, frankly, having one go off to a great home is also a relief.

Here is a closer view of Kimmie:

Please Feel Free to Share:

Writer Finances Versus The Paycheck World

Here’s an interesting and perhaps useful post from Kristine Kathryn Rusch, about the importance of managing finances if you’re a writer. Any writer other than one of the mega-bestsellers, she means.

I dip in and out of Rusch’s posts because for me they tend to be kinda tl;dr. I like long posts about complicated subjects, but apparently there are limits. Still, these can be useful posts. This is certainly a good point right here:

Here’s a piece of advice you don’t hear very often:

Pay off your house.

Seriously, my writer friends. If you get a lump sum of money, pay off your house.

Or your car.

Definitely pay off your credit cards, and take them out of your wallet. Use them only when you travel to a conference or plan to make a big purchase.

If the indie writers who made a lot of money in 2012-2014 had followed that advice, they’d still be writing and publishing. Sure, their incomes would still be down, along with their sales, but their careers would continue.

How do I know they didn’t do that?

Because they’re gone.

And then Rusch goes on for a long post about managing finances when you don’t have a steady income. The important point:

When your income is irregular and unpredictable, living like a person with a paycheck is risky. You can’t guarantee that you’ll get enough money every month to cover that month’s bills. Some months you’ll get five times what you need. Some months you’ll get no money at all. … So, for those of you who are going to get windfalls this year—and many of you will—pay off things. Get rid of your credit card bills and keep those cards at home so you don’t charge them up again. Buy your car outright or find a good used model. Move to better (cheaper) housing. Maybe buy a house with cash. Put money away for a rainy day.

Anyway . . . whether or not you click through and read the whole thing, as far as I’m concerned — and here I’m speaking as a writer who also has a good part-time job that covers basic expenses — she is totally right about everything in this post.

Please Feel Free to Share:

Story openings to avoid, part six

Good heavens, is this series of posts still going?

At Pub Rants: 9 Story Openings to Avoid, Part 6

Your opening pages might be in trouble if…

#6) Your novel opens with prose problems, such as flowery or overly descriptive verbiage.

I suppose! Of course whether a particular flowery, descriptive opening is a problem depends on the reader. The example in this post is certainly overdone:

This morning, while sipping my steaming hot and deliciously aromatic Mountain chai with creamy half and half and gazing out my window at the cerulean sky, I pondered on the inevitable curiosity borne of dissecting why working authors succumb to the passion of crafting overwrought prose.

But part of that is not the pile o’ adverbs and adjectives, it’s that some of the clauses are stupid. “Pondered on the inevitable curiosity borne of” is kinda nonsensical, which would interfere with an otherwise . . . still somewhat overdone sentence, granted. Cerulean is a great word, but, yeah, overdone here.

How about this opening:

No one really knew where Peri lived the year after the sea took her father and cast his boat, shrouded in a tangle of fishing net, like an empty shell back onto the beach.

Or this one:

While the ruler of the ancient city of Ombria lay dying, his mistress, frozen out of the room by the black stare of Domina Pearl, drifted like a bird on a wave until she bumped through Kyel Greve’s unguarded door to his bed, where he was playing with his puppets.

Or this one:

Her father ordered two full-grown trees to plant in the green area behind the inn. One was a kirrenberry, the tree of silence. Sit beneath it in spring or summer and its limbs, with their flat, dark leaves, would stretch noiselessly above you; in autumn or winter you would hear no rustle from its slender branches as it shook in the frenzied breeze.

Do you recognize those? The first two are books by Patricia McKillip: The Changeling Sea and Ombria in Shadow. The other is The Truth-Teller’s Tale by Sharon Shinn.

I wonder if, after being prompted by a handful of not-very-well-written intro sentences, an agent might be more likely to consider these sentences too flowery or descriptive? Granted you could load any of them up with a lot more adjectives and overdo it, but frankly they have plenty of flowery description already. I hadn’t quite realized how much McKillip does with metaphor when she’s writing description.

I don’t know that it would take too much to pull back that first bad example and make it sound okay. How about this:

This morning, while sipping my steaming hot and deliciously aromatic Mountain chai and gazing out my window at the cerulean sky, I pondered on why working authors succumb to the passion of crafting overwrought prose.

Still overdone? What do you think? Even with the cerulean sky, I’m not sure this would jump out at me as a bad example now — depending on what kind of book this was supposed to be. I could see this as the opening of a cozy mystery with an author or poet or someone like that as the protagonist.

Anyway, click through if you’d care to read the rest of the post and also get the links to parts one through five in the series.

Please Feel Free to Share: