Jim C. Hines's Blog, page 151

Oatmeal, McGuire, and Entitlement

I like The Oatmeal, and I've seen a lot of people pointing to this comic, often with a comment like, "This is why people pirate!"

I see two things in this comic. The first is an excellent point: people want to be able to buy and download things when they come out. More and more people watch and read things online, and it's incredibly frustrating when that option isn't available. In this example, I think HBO is probably making a mistake by not selling Game of Thrones to people who want to watch it.

The second thing in this comic, however, feels like pure entitlement. HBO has made a business decision to only offer the show for download to HBO subscribers. I think that's a bad business decision, but does the fact that the show is not available RIGHT THIS SECOND mean people have the right to say, "Oh well, I tried. Time to go swipe it off a torrent site!"

My next book is going to be released as a hardcover, which means it will cost about $25. I totally understand that not everyone will want to pay $25 for a book, and I'm happy that a year later, you should be able to buy it for $8 as a paperback. But if you want a copy of that book for $8, you have to wait. You don't get to say, "I want it now!" and just swipe it off a bookstore shelf.

DRM is annoying. Businesses that don't make their products available to users who want to buy them is frustrating as hell. But the entitlement thing is a problem too.

Case in point: Seanan McGuire's latest book went on sale early at Amazon … in print format. The e-book edition won't be available until the on-sale date. As a result, readers and so-called fans have been heaping abuse on her because … well, because they might have to wait a whole two weeks to buy the e-book:

People who have to wait for their electronic books are not being denied anything; they're doing what was supposed to happen in the first place. This has not stopped the exciting emails from rolling in. They mostly stopped after the first day, but on that first day, I was called…

…a bitch.

…a whore.

…a cunt.

…stupid.

…greedy.

…ungrateful.

…narcissistic.

Because that sense of entitlement, the idea that I WANT IT RIGHT NOW!!!, is so powerful that these people felt justified in attacking and threatening the author, then running out to pirate all of her books. The author who, incidentally, has no control over this situation!

Naturally, since Seanan is female, the abuse is even harsher and significantly sexualized. Because women, like books and TV shows, are possessions, right? And we're entitled to say or do whatever we like to them.

What the f*** is wrong with people?

I get being frustrated when you really want to watch/read something and you can't. It frustrates the hell out of me when publishers limit availability or cripple a file's usability. And I know perfectly well that people will choose to pirate files when they can't easily buy them.

But for God's sake, get a spine and own that choice. Don't pretend the evil publisher made you do it. Take responsibility for the fact that you couldn't bother to wait two weeks for Seanan's book to be available legally, or that you didn't want to subscribe to HBO and didn't want to wait for them to make the show available through other outlets.

I don't really get worked up about piracy these days. I have more important (to me) things to care about. And I get that it's a more complicated issue than a lot of people want to admit.

But the entitlement thing pisses me off, especially when that attitude leads to such vicious attacks on my friends.

Updates: Income and Amazon

First, a follow-up to my 2011 Writing Income post. My 2011 income jumped significantly from last year, which has been lovely. However, it's important to keep in mind that the numbers I posted were pre-tax.

Having pretty much completed our 2011 taxes, it looks like we'll be paying roughly $8000 to the state and federal government. This also means paying significantly higher quarterly estimated taxes for 2012.

I'm okay with this. I've been setting a fair amount of money aside, because I knew this was coming. And I certainly don't object to paying my share for the services I and my family use.

That said, it's still rather gut-wrenching to see that final figure come up in the tax software…

#

And now, to Amazon and my mysteriously changing e-book price. As of yesterday, I've sent five e-mails to Amazon's KDP support about this issue. To their credit, Amazon has responded within 2-3 days to each of my messages.

Unfortunately, it's not the same person responding each time. First it was Dieter, who said they'd change the price back, but didn't tell me why it had been lowered in the first place. When I wrote back for clarification, I got a response from Aishwarya, who linked me to their terms or service and pointed out that they had price-matched my book to the Kobo price a month ago (but didn't explain why they had done so again). Then Craig e-mailed and said my price was now $2.99 … ignoring the actual questions I asked.

Next time, I asked if they could escalate me to someone who might answer my questions. I got an e-mail back from one of the KDP Executive Customer Relations people, who again pointed to the lower Kobo price from a month ago.

I've written back to ask him to clarify if he's saying Amazon will price-match to month-old listings even if your book isn't currently offered for a lower price anywhere.

It's conceivable that Kobo or someone else briefly dropped the price to $.99 this month and then restored it, and that while I didn't see this, Amazon did. Especially if they've got search spiders automatically checking competitor prices and marking down their own. I find this scenario highly unlikely, but I can't rule it out.

The lessons I'm taking away thus far:

Amazon responds quickly, and if it's an easy question, they'll probably take care of you within a day or two.
If it's a question requiring follow-up, things get a lot messier.
Amazon has a higher level of customer support; if you're not getting a satisfactory response, ask them to bump you up the chain.

A few other Amazon-related items have hit the news lately…

Amazon chose not to renew its agreement with IPG Books and removed all of their Kindle titles. This was done when Amazon pushed for new terms which would have been far more favorable to Amazon, and IPG wouldn't agree.
Prior to the IPG situation, the Author's Guild also posted a piece about what they describe as Amazon's predatory/anti-competitive practices.

As before, I'm not trying to paint Amazon as the kitten-hating, puppy-kicking, Smurf-stomping reincarnation of all things Evil. But as an author, this is the sort of thing I think it's important to be aware of.

#

To end on a completely different note, I just received my first fart question at Ask A Goblin…

More Hugo Stuff

In my Fan Writer and Other Hugo Stuff post, I joked about what the goblins would do with a Hugo rocket. It occurs to me now that while the other goblins were arguing about how to reach the moon, Braf would promptly run off with the trophy to test its nose-picking properties…

Anyway, y'all have until March 11 to get your nominations in. I submitted mine over the weekend, and there were two items I wanted to share.

Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form): Phineas and Ferb: Across the Second Dimension. Seanan McGuire pointed out that the Phineas and Ferb movie totally qualifies for this category. Dimension-hopping kids, a cyborg platypus, lemonade-loving robots … I'm a big fan of the show, and I'd love to see this make the ballot.

Best Editor (Long Form): Betsy Wollheim of DAW. Disclaimer: DAW is my publisher, though Betsy is not my editor. You can read Pat Rothfuss' tribute to Betsy here (Betsy is Pat's editor). Betsy puts in a tremendous amount of work, and helps DAW to put out an awful lot of good books.

#

And now for some random Hugo-related snark and commentary. (Those of you who follow me on Twitter may have already seen some of these.)

Do the Hugos have a Best Dystopia category? I'd like to nominate certain members of Congress…

Given the issues with certain SF/F trophies (like the World Fantasy Award, which is 1) butt-ugly and 2) based on one disgustingly racist dude), all trophies from this point forward should be made out of LEGO. That way if you don't like it, you can just make it into something else.

Should we also have a category for Best Review? And another for Best Author Completely Losing His/Her Sh*t Over a Review?

I'm still grumpy that "Invisible Cheezburger!" lost the Best Cat Macro Hugo a few years back.

If I had a time machine, I'd go back and convince Hugo Gernsback's parents to name him Bob. Because I want to write a Bob-winning book. (For those with gutter-mind (like me), naming him Richard could also be amusing.)

I debated nominating Castle for Best Hugo for Short-Form Drama. Their depiction of the authorial lifestyle qualifies as fantasy, right?

Next year, Neil Gaiman is getting my Hugo nomination for Best Response to a Bigoted A**hole.

If we created a Hugo for Best Panel Moderation, do you think it would encourage more people to actually moderate panels?

New rule: every fantasy author who doesn't treat horses like tireless hairy motorcycles automatically gets a Hugo.

The Hugo for Best Dramatic Presentation That Isn't a Reboot, Sequel, or Retelling has been removed from this year's ballot due to the relative lack of eligible entries.

Who Controls Your Amazon E-book Price?

As most of you know, I've self-published a few e-books. The most popular has been Goblin Tales [Amazon | B&N], a collection of five goblin-related short stories. I priced it at $2.99, which seemed fair, and means I receive Amazon's 70% royalty rate, earning roughly $2/copy sold.

From a strategic standpoint, Amazon's decision to offer 70% royalties to self-published authors was brilliant. A lot of authors who might not have otherwise self-published started putting both backlist and new titles up for sale. Over the course of several years, Amazon has become (in my opinion) the major player in self-publishing and e-books.

A certain champion of self-publishing recently decried all of the "whiny bitches" complaining about Amazon, and argued how Amazon treats authors so much better than commercial publishers.

While there are certainly advantages to Amazon's program, anyone who thinks Amazon is in this to help authors is a fool. Amazon, like pretty much any other business, is in this to make money. As for how they treat authors, let me share what I've experienced over the past week and a half.

Amazon can and will adjust your price as they see fit.

On Saturday (2/11), I noticed that Amazon had marked Goblin Tales down to $.99. I don't know why, and I don't know when exactly this change was made.

This wasn't the first time I'd had trouble controlling the price of my own e-book. I put Goblin Tales on sale over the holidays, then returned it to $2.99 in early January. Rather, I tried to do so. Only Kobo was slow to raise their price, and since Amazon's Terms of Service allow them to match any competing price, Goblin Tales stayed at $.99 with its reduced royalty rate for several more weeks, earning me about 1/6 of what I normally made for each sale (35% royalties based on the $.99 price-matched price).

So when I saw that Amazon had dropped the price again, my first step was to check other listings. Everywhere else, the book was on sale for its list price of $2.99. I saw no external reason for Amazon to drop the price.

I also heard from another author that several of their books had also been cut to $.99 without warning or explanation, making me suspect this was either a database glitch or an arbitrary price cut.

I'll give Amazon credit - the Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) team responded to me fairly quickly, and restored the price to $2.99 by Valentine's Day. But they also pointed to section 5.3.2 of the current Amazon/KDP Terms and Conditions, which gives them:

…sole and complete discretion to set the retail price at which your Digital Books are sold through the Program.

So what's the big deal? Don't retailers put things on sale all the time? Well, sure … which leads me to my second lesson.

Amazon can calculate royalties based on the sale price, not your list price.

With my DAW books, if a bookstore offers a sale, I still get my royalties based on the cover price. Amazon is selling Libriomancer for pre-order at almost half-off, but I'll get paid my full amount for every copy sold. Not so with self-published titles. Looking at my reports for last week, my royalties were slashed by 2/3 for every copy sold, because Amazon paid me 70% of the $.99 sale price, not my list price.

According to the KDP Pricing Page, royalties should be based on the list price ($2.99) unless the price adjustment was due to a price-matching situation (dropping the price to match a competitor's price) … but my royalties report still shows a 67% cut.

When I followed up with the DTP team, they responded thusly:

The price at which we sell your book may not be the same as your list price.  This may occur, for example, if we sell your book at a lower price to match a third party's price for a digital or physical edition of the book… In this case, if you have chosen the 70% option for your book, your 70% royalty will be calculated based on our price for the book (less delivery costs and taxes).

Of course, this wasn't actually the case, as there was no lower third-party price. I asked them again to show me where their Pricing Page or Terms of Service allow Amazon to arbitrarily cut your book's offer price and reduce your royalties based on that change. I haven't heard back from them.

Sometimes going it alone sucks.

If a retailer pulled a stunt like this with one of my commercially published books, DAW/Penguin would stomp them. If DAW tried something funny in my royalty statements, my agent would be all over that crap. Given that my agent represents a number of authors, including folks like Brandon Sanderson, Charlaine Harris, Tanya Huff, etc., he's got some pull.

But self-publishing puts you in charge of every aspect of your career. Meaning when Amazon messed with one of my books, it was on me to challenge them and get it fixed. They did restore the price, as I said, but what exactly would I do if they said "Deal with it." Sue them? That's theoretically an option, sure … but I still remember how much it cost, in time and money and energy, the last time I had to fight a court battle.

I've now sent four e-mails to their KDP team, and they have yet to get back to me with a straight answer as to why or how this happened. At this point, I figure getting the price restored is probably the best I'm going to get.

Diversification is a good thing.

Fortunately, in the end, this incident had little real impact on my finances. Goblin Tales sold sixteen copies at the reduced rate, meaning I was underpaid by a whopping $21 or so. Barely even worth a blog post, right? But the impact was minimal because:

Most of my titles are not self-published, so if Amazon messes with those titles, the bulk of my income stream is unaffected.
I discovered the problem fairly quickly and took steps to get it fixed.

I certainly intend to keep my e-book collections up on Amazon. I'm even planning to publish another one. I'm not telling people not to publish through Amazon; I am telling you to go in with your eyes open, and to understand that despite what the cheerleaders might suggest, Amazon is not pro-author. They're pro-Amazon.

One final note.

According to Section 2 of their Terms and Conditions, Amazon "reserve[s] the right to change the terms of this Agreement at any time in our sole discretion." On February 9 — just two days before the Goblin Tales glitch — they added the following:

KDP RELIES ON COMPLEX SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES.  WE STRIVE TO MAKE OUR SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES ERROR-FREE AND EFFICIENT, BUT WE CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT THEY WILL BE, AND WE WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY ARISING FROM SYSTEM OR PROCESS FAILURES, INTERRUPTIONS, INACCURACIES, ERRORS OR LATENCIES.

Bottom line? They make the rules, they can change the rules whenever they feel like it, and they aren't liable when they break the rules.

Tooth and Nail, by Jennifer Safrey

Tooth and Nail [Amazon | B&N | Mysterious Galaxy], by Jennifer Safrey, gives us a very cool protagonist. We meet Gemma Fae Cross in the boxing ring, where we learn she can not only take a punch, she can give as good as she gets.

Unknown to Gemma herself, she's not entirely human, and the fairy–sorry, the fae half of her heritage is about to crash in on her in a very big way. Pureblood fae are incapable of intentional violence, so when a dark power begins corrupting children, they need a halfblood warrior. They need Gemma.

Oh, and did I mention she'll also be working on tooth collection duty? That's right, Gemma is a tooth fairy fae, collecting children's teeth and the innocence contained within.

Gemma struggles throughout the book with the conflict between her human and fae sides, and in some ways, I think the book mirrors that struggle, never quite certain what it wants to be. The human conflicts felt gritty and real, whether it was in the gym (I loved the gym scenes!) or her relationship with her politician fiance or struggling to stay ahead of an overly-nosy reporter.

By contrast, the fae threats didn't feel as immediate. The loss of innocence, the quest to restore the Olde Way … they're more abstract conflicts, and I never felt quite as invested in that part of the story, nor was I completely convinced by the logic behind tooth collection.

As for Gemma herself, this is no delicate elfin fairy, this is a hard-hitting, flawed, stubborn, and often all too human warrior. She fights evil and collects teeth. What more do you need to know?

Ask a Goblin is Live at http://askjig.tumblr.com

The Ask a Goblin site went live at 9:00 a.m. today. I've got a few more questions and answers ready for this afternoon, after which the site will be updated on a regular schedule of whenever I feel like it.

I'm still figuring Tumblr out, so the site may change. I'm not currently planning to update this blog every time I post a new goblin Q&A. Right now, Ask a Goblin will automatically post to my Twitter account. There's also an RSS feed and LiveJournal account. Hopefully that gives folks enough options.

Of course, because I spent my time last night setting this up and answering questions, it means I had to postpone my Amazon rant. Ah well. I can yell at them next week.

Feedback on the site is welcome. If nothing else, hopefully it will provide a few laughs.

Ask A Goblin

I've decided to start an ongoing, irregular advice column: Ask A Goblin.

Jig (and possibly his fellow goblins) will answer questions about absolutely anything, from dating/relationships to careers to getting mustard stains out of your shirt.

Questions should be sent to askagoblin@jimchines.com. Jig et al. will answer whatever questions they want. If your question doesn't get answered, it's nothing personal. He probably just doesn't like you.

When you send your question, please note whether or not you wish your name to be included in any response. Pseudonyms are encouraged. If you don't say one way or another, we'll just make up a pseudonym for you. In fact, we might do that anyway.

If you want to know what qualifications Jig and company have to write an advice column, the answer is Absolutely None Whatsoever.

Let the questions begin!

Writers of the Future and Scientology

An LJ friend recently posted a piece titled Why I No Longer Support the Writers of the Future Contest.

[image error]I was a first place winner in Writers of the Future back in 1998. It was my first major short fiction sale. WotF paid me better than anyone else ever has for a short story. They also flew me out for a week-long workshop with folks like Algis Budrys and Dave Wolverton. It was a great experience, and I'm genuinely grateful for that.

When the subject of Scientology came up, we were told that the contest and its finances were completely separate from the church. That's something I've repeated to other writers more than once.

I'm no longer certain this is true.

Frank Wu wrote about the financial connections between Scientology and Writers/Illustrators of the Future back in 2005. He also reproduced a letter he received in 2006 from Joni Labaqui, one of the contest administrators, who wrote:

You were actually wrong in that Scientology pays for the writers and illustrators awards. The Hubbard estate (which is not the church) makes so much money on royalties from his hundreds of published fiction it would make your head spin. You were right about the fact that every one of us who works at Author Services is a Scientologist, but the judges of the contest are not. They share the same goal that Mr. Hubbard did in starting and paying for this contest - to help the new guy…

I met Joni 13 years ago, and while I was rather overwhelmed that week, I remember her as a nice and hard-working person. I liked her.

In a similar vein, Jerry Pournelle (one of the WotF judges) writes:

I also don't have to have an opinion about the Church of Scientology, because it doesn't operate the Writers of the Future, and has no influence over who wins it. That much I can guarantee. The contest isn't rigged. Algis Budrys wouldn't have anything to do with it if there were the slightest chance of that. Nor would I.

I agree that it's not rigged, and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise. Does the church operate the contest, though? It looks like the "Writers of the Future" trademark was assigned to the Church of Scientific Technology (if I'm reading the records correctly). What does that mean? I'm honestly not certain … but it suggests to me that perhaps the wall of separation isn't as solid as Pournelle believes.

I agree with John Scalzi's post that Writers of the Future is not a Scientology recruitment scheme. I remember joining a few friends as a kid for a Christian camp. I felt more pressure to join that church than I ever did at Writers of the Future. While the WotF experience idolizes L. Ron Hubbard, there was no attempt to recruit me. However, I've spoken to one individual who did observe precisely that kind of high-pressure church recruitment tactic toward someone there for the contest at a WotF event.

A fair amount of the "Writers of the Future = Scientology!" writing out there is big on angry rhetoric and short on anything resembling facts, which is a little frustrating. (See this piece, for example.) I'm not trying to tell anyone what to believe. I'm just trying to gather what information I have to try to sort things out in my own mind. Some of the information comes from people who prefer to remain anonymous. All I'll say is that I wouldn't include their claims if I didn't think they were reliable sources.

I was told by one such individual that for the church, the goal is not so much to help new writers, but to promote LRH and his brand. Particularly in schools and to kids, where they push the contest anthologies hard, hoping the books will serve as a gateway into Scientology. (This was presented not as conjecture, but as directly-overheard statements from multiple church members.)

None of this is meant to undermine the good things the contest does. The judges are, for the most part, amazing writers and people. Getting a walking tour of Hollywood from Tim Freaking Powers remains one of my favorite writing-related memories to this day. And I know that a lot of people involved with the contest, particularly some of the judges, are insistent about keeping the church separate from the contest.

But I no longer believe that Writers of the Future is entirely separate from Scientology.

I'm not saying everyone should run out and boycott the contest. But I've publicly praised Writers of the Future on many occasions, so I thought it was important to state this publicly as well.

I know the comments on this one have the potential to get messy, so let me preemptively ban some of the things I've seen on similar discussions elsewhere.

"Scientologists are all ________." Just like Catholics are all pedophiles and Mormons are all polygamists and so on? Don't be an ass.
"All religions are equally evil!" I'll buy this as soon as you provide historical documentation on the Quaker Crusades.
"Why are you picking on religion?" I'm pretty sure I'm not, thanks.
"Aren't there more important problems to worry about?" The Official Hierarchy of What We Can and Can't Worry About pisses me off. Don't go there.

With that said, discussion is welcome, as always. Just keep Wheaton's Law in mind, 'kay?

"Don't Be a Victim!"

This is, at least indirectly, a follow-up to my post from a week or so back about trusting your gut.

I'm a pretty strong supporter of the idea of self-defense. I enrolled my daughter in karate years ago. (This is how I ended up taking it as well.) She eventually dropped out, but I hope she retained at least some of the basics: things like a willingness to be loud, fight back, and raise a fuss.

I love working with the kids in class, teaching them to throw punches while at the same time yelling things like, "No! You're not my Dad! Stranger!" I love when can show someone that even though I might be physically stronger, there are some pretty straightforward things they can do to put me on the ground.

But I have a problem with … let's call it a certain philosophy about self-defense, one best summed up by the phrase, "Don't be a victim!" The assumption being that if you follow all of this training, then you'll be safe … and as a direct corollary, if you're assaulted, then it's because you didn't remember your training. I.e., it's your own fault.

How often have we seen and heard that phrase? Don't be a victim! Like it's all about the victim's choice. "Gosh, I'm bored and there's nothing good on TV. Guess I'll go get myself assaulted." Why the hell do we so rarely see, "Don't be a rapist!" or "Don't be a batterer!"

There are certainly things you can do to affect your chances of being victimized. A stranger is more likely to target someone whose body language projects nervousness and insecurity than someone who projects confidence. Learning to trust your gut, like my daughter did in the previous post, can help you avoid or escape a bad situation. Physically working with someone else, learning what it's like to take a hit, to punch and kick and throw, can cut down on that moment of paralysis when and if something happens. All of these are good things.

Yet the majority of rapes are committed, not by strangers, but by friends and family members. (73% of rapes against women, .) Another study finds that more than half of all violent crime occurs between non-strangers. Self-defense programs often do a great job talking about strangers; how many prepare you to fight off a boyfriend, a relative, or a coworker? (Some do, and that's great … but it's nowhere near as common, in my experience.)

Even the best self-defense techniques aren't perfect. After working with countless rape survivors, I've come to the conclusion that there is no guaranteed way to be safe. I've been told many times in Sanchin-Ryu that no matter how good you are, you're going to get hit. There is no perfect defense. Likewise, as long as there are individuals determined to commit rape and assault, there is no way to guarantee you won't be a victim.

The other problem is that the "Don't be a victim!" approach tends to put most or all of the responsibility on the potential victims. We'll send girls to learn self-defense, and voila, we've solved rape and domestic violence! As opposed to emphasizing things like bystander intervention, or just addressing the myths and assumptions that teach people (primarily men) that it's okay to commit these crimes in the first place. It came up a lot when I was working at MSU. I'd talk to groups about rapes on campus, and the first — sometimes the only – suggestion would be for self-defense training for girls.

Does anyone else see a problem with making women responsible for fixing crimes committed primarily by men?

There's got to be more. Even something as simple as trusting your gut has to go further. It can't just be about a girl turning back because a stopped car looks wrong. It has to be about the guy at a party who sees a couple and notices that the girl looks uncomfortable. It's about that guy trusting his own gut and actually stepping in to ask if everything's all right. It's about everyone at World Fantasy Con who saw the famed "creeper" harassing women but did nothing, ignoring their own gut feelings, because they assumed someone else would intervene.

I wouldn't be continuing my study of karate if I didn't believe in the things I'm learning and teaching there. But self-defense can't be the only solution. Nor can we allow it to shift the responsibility from the perpetrators onto the victims.

Range of Ghosts, by Elizabeth Bear

Elizabeth Bear's forthcoming book Range of Ghosts [Amazon | B&N | Mysterious Galaxy] is thoughtful.

I finished reading this book several weeks ago, and I've been trying to figure out how best to review it. I keep coming back to "thoughtful." Everything from the worldbuilding and mythology to character to sentence and word choice.

The book opens to Temur, heir to the Khaganate, stumbling through a battlefield. His hand has gone numb from clasping the bloody gash along the side of his neck– You know what? Let me just give you a few paragraphs from the first page.

Beyond the horizon, a city lay burning.

Having once turned his back on smoke and sunset alike, Temur kept walking. Or lurching. His bowlegged gait bore witness to more hours of his life spent astride than afoot, but no lean, long-necked pony bore him now. His good dun mare, with her coat that gleamed like gold-backed mirrors in the sun, had been cut from under him…

He walked because he could not bear to fall. Not here, not on this red earth. Not here among so many he had fought with and fought against.

And then you have Samarkar, who fled her home and gave up her title for the hope of becoming a wizard.

When the news of the fall of Qarash reached Tsarepheth, the Once-Princess Samarkar did not even know that a woman in red and saffron robes sat alongside her, because on that day Samarkar lay drowsy with poppy among rugs and bolsters in her room high up in the Citadel of wizards. Silk wraps wadded absorbent lint against a seeping wound low in her abdomen. When she woke–if she woke–she would no longer be the Once-Princess Samarkar. She would be the wizard Samarkar, and her training would begin in truth.

She had chosen to trade barrenness and the risk of death for the chance of strength.

One thing I think both of these introductions capture is the complexity of Bear's writing. Wizardry isn't a simple thing; you pay a price, and there's no guarantee you'll gain the power you hope for. We meet Temur as his dreams of battle and glory have been shattered by reality. In many stories, we see characters who change by the end of the tale. In this book, we meet characters already in flux, scared and confused and struggling.

I should mention the plot too, right? Okay, let's see … we've got warring kingdoms and dark magic and gods and armies of ghosts and tiger warriors and kidnapped lovers and a journey over a fascinating world.

The world is one of my favorite parts of the books. This is a world where the sky literally changes depending on the nature of the kingdom below. In Temur's land, there are moons for every heir, including himself. He looks up at the night sky to see which of his cousins have died based on how many of those moons have vanished. And then, later, he crosses into another land, and his family's moons are nowhere to be seen. I love it.

Bear also does a wonderful job on her horses. I'm no expert, so I can't say if she got every detail right, but she certainly avoided the "Horses = medieval motorcycles" mistake some epic fantasies fall into, and Temur's new mare Bansh is one of the best characters in the book.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone looking for a quick read. Thoughtful writing requires thoughtful reading, and I couldn't zip through this one the way I do some books. But if you're looking for more complex, non-Western epic fantasy, I'd definitely suggest checking it out.

I will note that this is book one of a series, so you shouldn't go in expecting things to be all wrapped up by the end.

You can read an excerpt at Tor.

Range of Ghosts comes out on March 27.