Ed Gorman's Blog, page 176
December 22, 2011
Was Robert Ludlum Murdered?
FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST
December 22, 2011
Kenneth Michael Kearns, M.D.Gynecologic Oncologist
GET UPDATES FROM KENNETH MICHAEL KEARNS, M.D.
L
Was Bourne Identity Author Robert Ludlum Murdered?
Posted: 12/19/11 02:11 PM ET
A spectacular headline in one London daily tabloid read, "Did Robert Ludlum's Gold-Digging wife murder him?" And another UK paper ran a similar story with a photo of Ludlum burning alive in his recliner. That's the sensational reaction I got earlier this year when I introduced my book, "The Ludlum Identity." I'm the nephew of Robert Ludlum, one of the most successful writers of the 20th century. A few years before his death in 2001, I made a promise to him to write his biography. But after his death, all sorts of things--including my medical practice--prevented me from starting my research in earnest. When I did, my book project quickly turned into more of a murder investigation worthy of my uncle's most riviting storylines.
My mother's sister was Robert's first wife and the love of his life. Shortly after his untimely death, Uncle Robert remarried and his life turned bad. At first, I did not pay much attention to this aspect of his life. There was so much more color and pizzazz in the life of this famous spy novelist and actor; enough action to keep readers turning pages to keep pace with all his hard living lifestyle, the international intrigue, the intelligence agency connection and the pain and sacrifice during his early years.
His was a life of unimaginable achievement and adventure. As an adopted child, Robert Ludlum explored the limits of reasonable behavior and parental tolerance. After a seemingly endless period of rowdy behavior, this future superstar settled down at the famed Connecticut prep-school, Cheshire Academy, and began to establish himself as a credible student of the arts as well as exceptional athlete. He entered the Marines after graduation and saw combat in the South Pacific. Returning from war, he attended Wesleyan College in Connecticut, where he focused on theatre and met his future wife. They got married, worked in television and theatre together and opened a successful playhouse in northern New Jersey.
Life was good, but at age 40 Robert walked away from his acting, advertising voice-over and producing career to devote all of his time to writing. That was a big gamble, but it paid off handsomely. His first book was a best seller, as were all that followed. More than a half billion copies of his fast-paced novels, which have been translated into 32 languages, were sold around the world. But what I found was that like so many of his works, in the final chapter of his life, Robert Ludlum was caught in a trap as deadly as any faced by his character Jason Bourne. The more I learned about the horrific last days of Robert Ludlum's life, the more I realized I wasn't writing a biography, I was conducting a criminal investigation. Robert Ludlum was found burning alive in his recliner one evening and the only person home at the time was Robert's second wife, Karen. She was unscathed and uncooperative with authorities. I needed to find out more.
It was the acclaimed defense attorney Jim Oliver, a bulldog of a litigator, who brought the "team" together to find out how Robert Ludlum died in his Florida home. Oliver introduced me to two of the top services in the nation, CJM Associates and Sutton Associates. These private investigators and forensic specialists looked into the case and agreed to come on board.
First I met Cynthia Michaud, a dead ringer for a James Bond girl from one of Ian Flemings' famous novels. She was blond, beautiful, highly intelligent, exceptionally well trained and deadly, I am sure. With her disarmingly sexy smile and Hollywood hourglass figure, I was captivated. This first meeting took place on a cold November day a year ago and was only an introduction to what lay ahead.
I was coming off a flight from JFK to LAX when my cell phone rang. "Doctor Kearns, this is Mike. I'm in charge of the Western States and I'd like to meet you at your office as soon as possible." The commanding, authoritative, yet kind voice on the line belonged to one of the former decorated FBI agents who had been assigned to this case.
Many days of testimony followed and Mike ultimately became a very close friend. I never saw Mike's car. He came to the office but I never knew how he got there. I did not ask. As it turned out, Mike was a veteran of some of the most sensational domestic crimes in America and it took me a few sessions before I really relaxed. I became "Kenny." It was, "So, Kenny, who was in the room when the second will was signed?" or "Kenny, tell me about the housekeeper and the nurse," and "Tell me every detail," "Try to remember," "Sleep on it," "Call me immediately if you think of something you might have missed".
I also was introduced to the Boss, the real capo di tuti capi, Mr. James F. Murphy, who was one of the nation's most decorated and proclaimed FBI Agents. I would come to find out that he was also a real- life hero as portrayed in the finale of the Al Pacino film, "Dog Day Afternoon." Jim was the real undercover agent who shot and killed a psychopathic bank robber and kidnapper at point blank range. Jim had saved the lives of eight people.
The Ludlum affair was right up Jim's alley. There was money, greed, sex, power and unexplained death. Murphy focused on the players and, as I would come to find out, every person in Robert Ludlum's life would be scrutinized.
Before hiring these professionals, I had found that key witnesses to Robert Ludlum's untimely death and a prior attempt on his life, would not talk. The pros took care of this problem. Six former FBI Agents conducted interviews in multiple states over a five month period, and the plot thickened. Robert's younger son Jonathan, who was in the process of investigating his father's death as well as beginning a challenge to the Ludlum Estate, disappeared two years ago and was ultimately found dead in his home. No one had heard from him for over a month. Karen Ludlum, Robert's second wife and the only witness to the event that took his life, died last year. The cause of death was listed as "suicide."
There currently is ongoing dialogue with police authorities and one coroner. True to the promise I made to Uncle Robert, I'm going to finish this story.
Correction: The character "Jason Bourne"'s name was originally misspelled. This has been corrected.
December 22, 2011
Kenneth Michael Kearns, M.D.Gynecologic Oncologist
GET UPDATES FROM KENNETH MICHAEL KEARNS, M.D.
L
Was Bourne Identity Author Robert Ludlum Murdered?
Posted: 12/19/11 02:11 PM ET
A spectacular headline in one London daily tabloid read, "Did Robert Ludlum's Gold-Digging wife murder him?" And another UK paper ran a similar story with a photo of Ludlum burning alive in his recliner. That's the sensational reaction I got earlier this year when I introduced my book, "The Ludlum Identity." I'm the nephew of Robert Ludlum, one of the most successful writers of the 20th century. A few years before his death in 2001, I made a promise to him to write his biography. But after his death, all sorts of things--including my medical practice--prevented me from starting my research in earnest. When I did, my book project quickly turned into more of a murder investigation worthy of my uncle's most riviting storylines.
My mother's sister was Robert's first wife and the love of his life. Shortly after his untimely death, Uncle Robert remarried and his life turned bad. At first, I did not pay much attention to this aspect of his life. There was so much more color and pizzazz in the life of this famous spy novelist and actor; enough action to keep readers turning pages to keep pace with all his hard living lifestyle, the international intrigue, the intelligence agency connection and the pain and sacrifice during his early years.
His was a life of unimaginable achievement and adventure. As an adopted child, Robert Ludlum explored the limits of reasonable behavior and parental tolerance. After a seemingly endless period of rowdy behavior, this future superstar settled down at the famed Connecticut prep-school, Cheshire Academy, and began to establish himself as a credible student of the arts as well as exceptional athlete. He entered the Marines after graduation and saw combat in the South Pacific. Returning from war, he attended Wesleyan College in Connecticut, where he focused on theatre and met his future wife. They got married, worked in television and theatre together and opened a successful playhouse in northern New Jersey.
Life was good, but at age 40 Robert walked away from his acting, advertising voice-over and producing career to devote all of his time to writing. That was a big gamble, but it paid off handsomely. His first book was a best seller, as were all that followed. More than a half billion copies of his fast-paced novels, which have been translated into 32 languages, were sold around the world. But what I found was that like so many of his works, in the final chapter of his life, Robert Ludlum was caught in a trap as deadly as any faced by his character Jason Bourne. The more I learned about the horrific last days of Robert Ludlum's life, the more I realized I wasn't writing a biography, I was conducting a criminal investigation. Robert Ludlum was found burning alive in his recliner one evening and the only person home at the time was Robert's second wife, Karen. She was unscathed and uncooperative with authorities. I needed to find out more.
It was the acclaimed defense attorney Jim Oliver, a bulldog of a litigator, who brought the "team" together to find out how Robert Ludlum died in his Florida home. Oliver introduced me to two of the top services in the nation, CJM Associates and Sutton Associates. These private investigators and forensic specialists looked into the case and agreed to come on board.
First I met Cynthia Michaud, a dead ringer for a James Bond girl from one of Ian Flemings' famous novels. She was blond, beautiful, highly intelligent, exceptionally well trained and deadly, I am sure. With her disarmingly sexy smile and Hollywood hourglass figure, I was captivated. This first meeting took place on a cold November day a year ago and was only an introduction to what lay ahead.
I was coming off a flight from JFK to LAX when my cell phone rang. "Doctor Kearns, this is Mike. I'm in charge of the Western States and I'd like to meet you at your office as soon as possible." The commanding, authoritative, yet kind voice on the line belonged to one of the former decorated FBI agents who had been assigned to this case.
Many days of testimony followed and Mike ultimately became a very close friend. I never saw Mike's car. He came to the office but I never knew how he got there. I did not ask. As it turned out, Mike was a veteran of some of the most sensational domestic crimes in America and it took me a few sessions before I really relaxed. I became "Kenny." It was, "So, Kenny, who was in the room when the second will was signed?" or "Kenny, tell me about the housekeeper and the nurse," and "Tell me every detail," "Try to remember," "Sleep on it," "Call me immediately if you think of something you might have missed".
I also was introduced to the Boss, the real capo di tuti capi, Mr. James F. Murphy, who was one of the nation's most decorated and proclaimed FBI Agents. I would come to find out that he was also a real- life hero as portrayed in the finale of the Al Pacino film, "Dog Day Afternoon." Jim was the real undercover agent who shot and killed a psychopathic bank robber and kidnapper at point blank range. Jim had saved the lives of eight people.
The Ludlum affair was right up Jim's alley. There was money, greed, sex, power and unexplained death. Murphy focused on the players and, as I would come to find out, every person in Robert Ludlum's life would be scrutinized.
Before hiring these professionals, I had found that key witnesses to Robert Ludlum's untimely death and a prior attempt on his life, would not talk. The pros took care of this problem. Six former FBI Agents conducted interviews in multiple states over a five month period, and the plot thickened. Robert's younger son Jonathan, who was in the process of investigating his father's death as well as beginning a challenge to the Ludlum Estate, disappeared two years ago and was ultimately found dead in his home. No one had heard from him for over a month. Karen Ludlum, Robert's second wife and the only witness to the event that took his life, died last year. The cause of death was listed as "suicide."
There currently is ongoing dialogue with police authorities and one coroner. True to the promise I made to Uncle Robert, I'm going to finish this story.
Correction: The character "Jason Bourne"'s name was originally misspelled. This has been corrected.
Forgotten Books: ON THE LOOSE Andrew Coburn
ON THE LOOSE
Andrew Coburn
I've been saying for years that the single most neglected major crime fiction writer in the United States is Andrew Coburn. And here he is with a new novel to prove me right again.
I've spent two days trying to think of a tidy way to describe On The Loose (Leisure,$6.99) and thus far my best shot is to imagine a collaboration between John D. MacDonald Ruth Rendell. MacDonald for the page-turning excitement of following the most unique serial killer since The Bad Seed and Rendell for some of the quirkiest characters outside several of her own masterpieces.
Coburn is a profoundly American writer as he demonstrates in this novel that spans slightly more than a decade in the life of a small New England town. The storyline never lets you go. The murders are committed by one of the mostly stunningly enigmatic killers in mystery fiction. He is barely ten the first time he strikes. He is not much older the second time. The killings are what propel the storyline.
But Coburn's sense of the town and the lives of his people are what give the book the depth and range of a true novel. He does what Hitchcock did in Shadow of a Doubt--takes a story that has a death-grip on its readers and then walk thems around the lives and town that surround the killer. The fading beauty lost to excess weight and clinical depression; the police chief who believes he is beyond passion only to find it again and risk being crushed by it; the man dying of AIDs and the woman who befriends him; the divide between rich and poor that belittles both sides.
And the writing itself. Coburn plays all the instruments in the orchestra for this book which is, by turns, lyrical, funny, solemn, sarcastic, violent, terrifying and human in a way page-turners rarely are.
It's time for Andrew Coburn to be recognized for the master stylist and storyteller extraordinaire he has been for more than two decades now. On The Run--and everybody in the book really is running from something--proves that he gets better with each new novel.
Andrew Coburn
I've been saying for years that the single most neglected major crime fiction writer in the United States is Andrew Coburn. And here he is with a new novel to prove me right again.
I've spent two days trying to think of a tidy way to describe On The Loose (Leisure,$6.99) and thus far my best shot is to imagine a collaboration between John D. MacDonald Ruth Rendell. MacDonald for the page-turning excitement of following the most unique serial killer since The Bad Seed and Rendell for some of the quirkiest characters outside several of her own masterpieces.
Coburn is a profoundly American writer as he demonstrates in this novel that spans slightly more than a decade in the life of a small New England town. The storyline never lets you go. The murders are committed by one of the mostly stunningly enigmatic killers in mystery fiction. He is barely ten the first time he strikes. He is not much older the second time. The killings are what propel the storyline.
But Coburn's sense of the town and the lives of his people are what give the book the depth and range of a true novel. He does what Hitchcock did in Shadow of a Doubt--takes a story that has a death-grip on its readers and then walk thems around the lives and town that surround the killer. The fading beauty lost to excess weight and clinical depression; the police chief who believes he is beyond passion only to find it again and risk being crushed by it; the man dying of AIDs and the woman who befriends him; the divide between rich and poor that belittles both sides.
And the writing itself. Coburn plays all the instruments in the orchestra for this book which is, by turns, lyrical, funny, solemn, sarcastic, violent, terrifying and human in a way page-turners rarely are.
It's time for Andrew Coburn to be recognized for the master stylist and storyteller extraordinaire he has been for more than two decades now. On The Run--and everybody in the book really is running from something--proves that he gets better with each new novel.
December 21, 2011
W.R. Burnett
SEPTEMBER 15, 2007
W.R. Burnett
Here, from the Turner Classic Movie site, is a biography of the much underrated writer:
Biography
A highly-prolific author whose novels and short stories provided the basis for numerous films ranging from the gangster classic "Little Caesar" (1930) to the Western "Dark Command" (1940), W R Burnett also adapted his own work for film (e.g., "High Sierra" 1941) and wrote original screenplays, both alone and in collaboration (e.g., "This Gun for Hire" 1942, "The Great Escape" 1963).
A former government statistician, Burnett settled in Chicago at the height of Prohibition and penned his first novel "Little Caesar" in 1929. A veiled study of the rise and fall of a mobster who bore a passing resemblance to Al Capone, the novel was an success as was the screen version starring Edward G Robinson. Books and stories with Burnett's by-line were almost a guaranteed sale to Hollywood (not unlike John Grisham and Stephen King in the late 20th Century), and eventually the writer turned to penning his own scripts for Tinseltown. Not only were the villains in Burnett novels revealed in full human texture--something little seen in melodramas--but also the characters of the cops and other urban authority figures were often idiosyncratic and full-bodied, His storytelling practically created the Warner Bros. gangster cycle of the 1930s, reaching a high point with his contributions to the dialogue of "Scarface" (1932). "High Sierra" (1941), adapted from his own novel, offered Humphrey Bogart one of his signature villains and "This Gun for Hire" (1942) brought Alan Ladd to the forefront as a hit man seeking revenge.
With the advent of World War II, gangster films lessened in popularity so Burnett turned to writing or co-writing dramas about men in combat situations. He and co-writer Frank Butler shared an Academy Award nomination for their original screenplay of "Wake Island" (1942), a gripping drama about American troops fighting to maintain control of the titular Pacific island at the outbreak of WWII. He went on to collaborate on "Crash Dive" and "Action in the North Atlantic" (both 1943), among others. Following the war, Burnett turned to Westerns (e.g., "San Antonio" 1946; "Belle Starr's Daughter" 1948) and then returned to form with the film noir "The Racket" (1951). He added a dose of humor to the action genre with "Sergeants Three" (1962), a loose remake of "Gunga Din" with Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr before penning his final credited screenplay, 1963's tense "The Great Escape", based on the largest escape of Allied POWs in World War II and featuring a star-making turn by Steve McQueen.
W.R. Burnett
Here, from the Turner Classic Movie site, is a biography of the much underrated writer:
Biography
A highly-prolific author whose novels and short stories provided the basis for numerous films ranging from the gangster classic "Little Caesar" (1930) to the Western "Dark Command" (1940), W R Burnett also adapted his own work for film (e.g., "High Sierra" 1941) and wrote original screenplays, both alone and in collaboration (e.g., "This Gun for Hire" 1942, "The Great Escape" 1963).
A former government statistician, Burnett settled in Chicago at the height of Prohibition and penned his first novel "Little Caesar" in 1929. A veiled study of the rise and fall of a mobster who bore a passing resemblance to Al Capone, the novel was an success as was the screen version starring Edward G Robinson. Books and stories with Burnett's by-line were almost a guaranteed sale to Hollywood (not unlike John Grisham and Stephen King in the late 20th Century), and eventually the writer turned to penning his own scripts for Tinseltown. Not only were the villains in Burnett novels revealed in full human texture--something little seen in melodramas--but also the characters of the cops and other urban authority figures were often idiosyncratic and full-bodied, His storytelling practically created the Warner Bros. gangster cycle of the 1930s, reaching a high point with his contributions to the dialogue of "Scarface" (1932). "High Sierra" (1941), adapted from his own novel, offered Humphrey Bogart one of his signature villains and "This Gun for Hire" (1942) brought Alan Ladd to the forefront as a hit man seeking revenge.
With the advent of World War II, gangster films lessened in popularity so Burnett turned to writing or co-writing dramas about men in combat situations. He and co-writer Frank Butler shared an Academy Award nomination for their original screenplay of "Wake Island" (1942), a gripping drama about American troops fighting to maintain control of the titular Pacific island at the outbreak of WWII. He went on to collaborate on "Crash Dive" and "Action in the North Atlantic" (both 1943), among others. Following the war, Burnett turned to Westerns (e.g., "San Antonio" 1946; "Belle Starr's Daughter" 1948) and then returned to form with the film noir "The Racket" (1951). He added a dose of humor to the action genre with "Sergeants Three" (1962), a loose remake of "Gunga Din" with Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr before penning his final credited screenplay, 1963's tense "The Great Escape", based on the largest escape of Allied POWs in World War II and featuring a star-making turn by Steve McQueen.
December 19, 2011
Clint Eastwood's Family to Star in Bunim/Murray Reality Show; HBO Cancels 3 Shows
Cinema Retro: Clint Eastwood's Family to Star in Bunim/Murray Reality Show
Keeping Up With The Eastwoods? Believe it: Bunim/Murray productions, creators of reality sensations The Kardashians and "The Real World," are taking Clint Eastwood's family and turning them into the next big thing with a new E! reality show.
According to TMZ, the show will follow the life of Eastwood's wife Dina, the couple's 15-year-old daughter Morgan, and Eastwood's 18-year-old daughter Francesca Fisher-Eastwood from his relationship with actress Frances Fisher. The point, it seems, is to peek inside the lives of "Hollywood royalty," and the show's focus will mainly be on Francesca's aspirations to become an actress.
But if you're imagining Eastwood as the next Bruce Jenner, think again. Busy basking in his post "J. Edgar" glory and gearing up to star as a nearly-blind sports scout in the upcoming"Trouble with the Curve", Eastwood is only slated to make a few cameos on the still untitled show.
The series is set to air in early 2012. For more, click over to TMZ.
=========================================== HBO
Ed here: Nerts. I really liked Bored to Death and to a lesser degree Hung.
FROM HUFFINGTON POST
HBO Cancels 'Hung,' 'Bored To Death' And 'How To Make It In America,' Renews 'Enlightened'
HBO has canceled three of its shows: "Hung," "How to Make it in America" and "Bored to Death," Variety was the first to report. But the primetime cable network did spare one series. According to TVLine, the struggling "Enlightened" was renewed.
"Hung," which just ended its third season, starred Thomas Jane as a gym teacher-turned male hooker. Jane Adams, Anne Heche and Rebecca Creskoff also starred. The Season 3 finale aired on Dec. 4 and pulled in under 1 million viewers.
The Bryan Greenberg-fronted "How to Make it in America," about breaking into New York City's fashion scene, just ended its second season. The show, which also starred Lake Bell and Victor Rasuk, brought in under 600,000 for its Season 2 finale.
"Bored to Death" wrapped its third season in late November. The show starred Jason Schwartzman as a fictional Jonathan Ames as well as Ted Danson and Zach Galifianakis. Despite its impressive cast, "Bored to Death" only had 200,000 viewers tune into the Season 3 finale last month.
The survivor, "Enlightened," starring Laura Dern, will return for a second season. The show recently picked up several Golden Globe nominations, including one for Best Comedy.
RELATED ON HUFFPOST:
James Franco; Jerry Lewis
Did James Franco Get an NYU Prof Fired?
Ed here: Obviously I have no idea if the following is true. But I do know for sure that a little of James Franco goes a loooooong way. This fromNew York Magazine's website.
By Noreen Malone
James Franco.
José Angel Santana, a 58-year-old former professor at NYU's Tisch school, alleges he lost his job because of the grade he gave master's student James Franco — a D. Franco showed up to just two of the semester's fourteen classes, says Santana (an attendance record that would go a long way toward explaining how Franco is able to juggle so many obligations). Franco, complaining publicly about the poor mark last year, said "I did well in everything else," which is basically the professor's point. Santana, who is suing the school, also suggested that other professors gave Franco good grades partly as "payback"; the actor hired professor Jay Anania to write and direct the film William Vincent. The lawsuit also points out that the graduate film department's chairman made a cameo in a Franco film. The school didn't reply to the Post for comment. It all sort of sounds like a meta-meditation on the power and portrayal of celebrity — are we sure this wasn't Franco's final academic project?
---------------------Jerry Lewis
As many of you know by now, I'm not a big fan of Jerry Lewis' work. I'm wiling to admit it's me. I watched part of Nutty Professor the other night and I didn't even care much for that. Clever, yes, but no resonance beyond that. (I know I'll get letters). Encore is now running a documentary/tribute and predictably the reviews have broken down into the fans and the haters. Oh, yes, people really HATE Jerry Lewis, actor and man both. I don't know if you'll find the excerpt from Mark Evanier's review even-handed but I do. Evanier knows more about show business than anybody I've ever read and he's spent decades producing TV shows, cartoon shows, writing for TV, writing for comic books, and most recently doing the definitive book on Jack Kirby. As I've said before I find him amazingly intelligent, humane and funny as hell. Here's his take on the Encore show:
Mark Evanier:
I like Jerry Lewis. I like him enough that when he made his Broadway debut in Damn Yankees, my friend Paul Dini and I flew back just to be in the audience for opening night.
(more)
I like the guy but to be a Jerry Lewis fan is to cringe often at the man's excesses, ramblings, self-serving statements, angry lash-outs at those he thinks have wronged him, etc. On that great new boxed DVD set of Laurel and Hardy films (this one), he babbles on about their history, getting it all wrong, apparently unaware that there are in this world people who actually know the truth. If someone had made so many errors telling the story of Martin and Lewis, he'd have been furious...but he just goes on and on doing this stuff. Given that he's 85, you might excuse it because of age. Trouble is, he's been like this all his life.
Jerry Lewis: Method to the Madness is the new two-hour documentary that's now playing on the Encore channel. What's wrong with it is summarized in the second on-screen title card at the end — an Executive Producer credit for Jerry Lewis. I don't know how much he actually did on it or what kind of freedom filmmaker Gregg Barson had, but you wish someone could or would tell Jerry, "Uh, it isn't a great idea to announce you were the top guy in charge of an overexcessive tribute to yourself."
Not only that but it's a tribute that so deifies its subject that the mortal can't measure up to the hype. The clips of his work do not demonstrate the brilliance described by the talking heads that range from Jerry Seinfeld's to Carol Burnett's. There may be no clips in the world by anyone that would. I can well imagine younger folks, unfamiliar with Lewis's body of work, watching this, hearing of his comedic genius...and then wondering what's so spectacular about wedging the entire mouth of a drinking glass in your mouth for half a century. All the material of Lewis on-stage in his eighties is a little sad in that way.
for all of it go here--well worth reading: http://www.newsfromme.com/
Ed here: Obviously I have no idea if the following is true. But I do know for sure that a little of James Franco goes a loooooong way. This fromNew York Magazine's website.
By Noreen Malone
James Franco.
José Angel Santana, a 58-year-old former professor at NYU's Tisch school, alleges he lost his job because of the grade he gave master's student James Franco — a D. Franco showed up to just two of the semester's fourteen classes, says Santana (an attendance record that would go a long way toward explaining how Franco is able to juggle so many obligations). Franco, complaining publicly about the poor mark last year, said "I did well in everything else," which is basically the professor's point. Santana, who is suing the school, also suggested that other professors gave Franco good grades partly as "payback"; the actor hired professor Jay Anania to write and direct the film William Vincent. The lawsuit also points out that the graduate film department's chairman made a cameo in a Franco film. The school didn't reply to the Post for comment. It all sort of sounds like a meta-meditation on the power and portrayal of celebrity — are we sure this wasn't Franco's final academic project?
---------------------Jerry Lewis
As many of you know by now, I'm not a big fan of Jerry Lewis' work. I'm wiling to admit it's me. I watched part of Nutty Professor the other night and I didn't even care much for that. Clever, yes, but no resonance beyond that. (I know I'll get letters). Encore is now running a documentary/tribute and predictably the reviews have broken down into the fans and the haters. Oh, yes, people really HATE Jerry Lewis, actor and man both. I don't know if you'll find the excerpt from Mark Evanier's review even-handed but I do. Evanier knows more about show business than anybody I've ever read and he's spent decades producing TV shows, cartoon shows, writing for TV, writing for comic books, and most recently doing the definitive book on Jack Kirby. As I've said before I find him amazingly intelligent, humane and funny as hell. Here's his take on the Encore show:
Mark Evanier:
I like Jerry Lewis. I like him enough that when he made his Broadway debut in Damn Yankees, my friend Paul Dini and I flew back just to be in the audience for opening night.
(more)
I like the guy but to be a Jerry Lewis fan is to cringe often at the man's excesses, ramblings, self-serving statements, angry lash-outs at those he thinks have wronged him, etc. On that great new boxed DVD set of Laurel and Hardy films (this one), he babbles on about their history, getting it all wrong, apparently unaware that there are in this world people who actually know the truth. If someone had made so many errors telling the story of Martin and Lewis, he'd have been furious...but he just goes on and on doing this stuff. Given that he's 85, you might excuse it because of age. Trouble is, he's been like this all his life.
Jerry Lewis: Method to the Madness is the new two-hour documentary that's now playing on the Encore channel. What's wrong with it is summarized in the second on-screen title card at the end — an Executive Producer credit for Jerry Lewis. I don't know how much he actually did on it or what kind of freedom filmmaker Gregg Barson had, but you wish someone could or would tell Jerry, "Uh, it isn't a great idea to announce you were the top guy in charge of an overexcessive tribute to yourself."
Not only that but it's a tribute that so deifies its subject that the mortal can't measure up to the hype. The clips of his work do not demonstrate the brilliance described by the talking heads that range from Jerry Seinfeld's to Carol Burnett's. There may be no clips in the world by anyone that would. I can well imagine younger folks, unfamiliar with Lewis's body of work, watching this, hearing of his comedic genius...and then wondering what's so spectacular about wedging the entire mouth of a drinking glass in your mouth for half a century. All the material of Lewis on-stage in his eighties is a little sad in that way.
for all of it go here--well worth reading: http://www.newsfromme.com/
December 18, 2011
7 Surprise Twists I'd Rather Live Without
FROM BOOK RIOT
7 Surprise Twists I'd Rather Live Without [or The Airing of Grievances, Literary Style]
Rebecca Joines Schinsky , posted on December 14, 2011 in Humor, Opinion
Dear Elizabeth Kostova: this would have been a better reveal.
A truly surprising surprise twist—the kind that makes you gasp or clutch your pearls or reexamine everything you thought you knew about a book—is a thing of beauty, especially when you're the kind of reader for whom suspending disbelief doesn't come so naturally. (Who's with me?)
When it works, I can love it, but in general, I am not a fan of the surprise twist, be it a reversal at the ending or a mid-plot change-up. It often seems lazy, a "give 'em the old razzle-dazzle" approach to distracting readers from a lack of substance, and when done poorly, it can ruin a book for me. And let's be honest, there are some surprise twist conceits so played out and/or impossible to pull off that no writer should use them again, ever. I propose we start with these. Be warned: I'm spoiling the surprises in half a dozen books here.
1. The Parent Switcheroo – This one boils down to: if I have to read one more story in which it turns out that the sister/aunt/close-family-friend is actually the main character's mother, I'm going to flip a biscuit. That's Southern for "rethink that whole 'book burning is bad' policy."
2. The "Dracula lives!"–Oh, Elizabeth Kostova. I wanted to love The Historian. Really, I did. It has the story-within-a-story thing that happens to be one of my personal literary kryptonites AND an epistolary structure that pressed a bunch of my happy buttons. Aside from the fact that it was a couple hundred pages too long, it was a good idea. But then it turns out that not only is Dracula really still alive, he's also ridiculously easy to kill? I was born at night, but not last night.
3. The "They were lovers!"—Favored by soap operas the world over, this surprise inevitably cheapens a story. I've encountered it several times, but Naseem Rakha's The Crying Tree, which had a lot going for it at the start, is the most recent offender I've found. It's about a couple whose son was killed several years prior, and the mother reaches out to her son's convicted killer as his execution date approaches. They forge a relationship that teaches them both about healing and forgiveness, and Rakha manages to address questions about the morality of capital punishment without being preachy. No easy feat, that.
The book is a little heavy handed but generally quite fine, and THEN! Then it goes off the rails when we find out that the killer was actually the son's lover and (double surprise!) the son was secretly gay. This particular use of the "They Were Lovers!" twist is even more egregious because Rakha telegraphs it at least a hundred pages before it is revealed. And I don't think I only picked up on that because I paid a lot of attention to the lessons about foreshadowing in high school. It was so completely unnecessary and maddening that it's now the only thing I really recall about this book, and that's too bad, mmkay.
for the rest go here:http://bookriot.com/2011/12/14/7-surp...
7 Surprise Twists I'd Rather Live Without [or The Airing of Grievances, Literary Style]
Rebecca Joines Schinsky , posted on December 14, 2011 in Humor, Opinion
Dear Elizabeth Kostova: this would have been a better reveal.
A truly surprising surprise twist—the kind that makes you gasp or clutch your pearls or reexamine everything you thought you knew about a book—is a thing of beauty, especially when you're the kind of reader for whom suspending disbelief doesn't come so naturally. (Who's with me?)
When it works, I can love it, but in general, I am not a fan of the surprise twist, be it a reversal at the ending or a mid-plot change-up. It often seems lazy, a "give 'em the old razzle-dazzle" approach to distracting readers from a lack of substance, and when done poorly, it can ruin a book for me. And let's be honest, there are some surprise twist conceits so played out and/or impossible to pull off that no writer should use them again, ever. I propose we start with these. Be warned: I'm spoiling the surprises in half a dozen books here.
1. The Parent Switcheroo – This one boils down to: if I have to read one more story in which it turns out that the sister/aunt/close-family-friend is actually the main character's mother, I'm going to flip a biscuit. That's Southern for "rethink that whole 'book burning is bad' policy."
2. The "Dracula lives!"–Oh, Elizabeth Kostova. I wanted to love The Historian. Really, I did. It has the story-within-a-story thing that happens to be one of my personal literary kryptonites AND an epistolary structure that pressed a bunch of my happy buttons. Aside from the fact that it was a couple hundred pages too long, it was a good idea. But then it turns out that not only is Dracula really still alive, he's also ridiculously easy to kill? I was born at night, but not last night.
3. The "They were lovers!"—Favored by soap operas the world over, this surprise inevitably cheapens a story. I've encountered it several times, but Naseem Rakha's The Crying Tree, which had a lot going for it at the start, is the most recent offender I've found. It's about a couple whose son was killed several years prior, and the mother reaches out to her son's convicted killer as his execution date approaches. They forge a relationship that teaches them both about healing and forgiveness, and Rakha manages to address questions about the morality of capital punishment without being preachy. No easy feat, that.
The book is a little heavy handed but generally quite fine, and THEN! Then it goes off the rails when we find out that the killer was actually the son's lover and (double surprise!) the son was secretly gay. This particular use of the "They Were Lovers!" twist is even more egregious because Rakha telegraphs it at least a hundred pages before it is revealed. And I don't think I only picked up on that because I paid a lot of attention to the lessons about foreshadowing in high school. It was so completely unnecessary and maddening that it's now the only thing I really recall about this book, and that's too bad, mmkay.
for the rest go here:http://bookriot.com/2011/12/14/7-surp...
December 17, 2011
Had To Happen: Don't Support Your Local Bookseller
Ed here: There's always a contrarian somewhere. In the past months there's been a glut of pieces about supporting your local bookstores, which I'm all in favor of. Now here's a piece that claims we shouldn't. Had to happen.
Don't Support Your Local Bookseller
Buying books on Amazon is better for authors, better for the economy, and better for you.
By Farhad Manjoo|Posted Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011, at 6:50 PM ET
The independent bookstore is not the last stronghold of literary culture you think it is
Amazon just did a boneheaded thing, and it deserves all the scorn you want to heap on it. Last week, the company offered people cash in exchange for going into retail stores and scanning items using the company's Price Check smartphone app. If you scanned a product and then purchased it from Amazon rather than the shop you were standing in, Amazon would give you a 5 percent discount on the sale. (Disclosure: Slate is an Amazon affiliate; when you click on an Amazon link from Slate, the magazine gets a cut of the proceeds from whatever you buy.)
I'm generally a fan of price comparison—like everyone else, I hate spending more than I should—but I can understand physical retailers' fear of the practice becoming widespread. When you walk into Best Buy and get a salesperson to spend 10 minutes showing you a television, then leave empty-handed so you can buy the TV for less on Amazon, you've just turned Best Buy into Jeff Bezos' chump. The Price Check promotion (which lasted only one day) was, like Amazon's aggressive efforts to dodge the collection of sales tax, a brazen attempt to crush local retailers, and I (as did many others) found it distasteful. Sure, I'm a fan of Amazon and devote a substantial portion of my income to its coffers—but does it have to be so wantonly callous about destroying its competitors?
Advertisement
All of which is to say that I was primed to nod in vigorous agreement when I saw novelist Richard Russo's New York Times op-ed taking on Amazon's thuggish ways. But as I waded into Russo's piece—which was widely passed around on Tuesday—I realized that he'd made a critical and common mistake in his argument. Rather than focus on the ways that Amazon's promotion would harm businesses whose demise might actually be a cause for alarm (like a big-box electronics store that hires hundreds of local residents), Russo hangs his tirade on some of the least efficient, least user-friendly, and most mistakenly mythologized local establishments you can find: independent bookstores. Russo and his novelist friends take for granted that sustaining these cultish, moldering institutions is the only way to foster a "real-life literary culture," as writer Tom Perrotta puts it. Russo claims that Amazon, unlike the bookstore down the street, "doesn't care about the larger bookselling universe" and has no interest in fostering "literary culture."
for the rest go here: http://www.slate.com/articles/technol...
Don't Support Your Local Bookseller
Buying books on Amazon is better for authors, better for the economy, and better for you.
By Farhad Manjoo|Posted Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011, at 6:50 PM ET
The independent bookstore is not the last stronghold of literary culture you think it is
Amazon just did a boneheaded thing, and it deserves all the scorn you want to heap on it. Last week, the company offered people cash in exchange for going into retail stores and scanning items using the company's Price Check smartphone app. If you scanned a product and then purchased it from Amazon rather than the shop you were standing in, Amazon would give you a 5 percent discount on the sale. (Disclosure: Slate is an Amazon affiliate; when you click on an Amazon link from Slate, the magazine gets a cut of the proceeds from whatever you buy.)
I'm generally a fan of price comparison—like everyone else, I hate spending more than I should—but I can understand physical retailers' fear of the practice becoming widespread. When you walk into Best Buy and get a salesperson to spend 10 minutes showing you a television, then leave empty-handed so you can buy the TV for less on Amazon, you've just turned Best Buy into Jeff Bezos' chump. The Price Check promotion (which lasted only one day) was, like Amazon's aggressive efforts to dodge the collection of sales tax, a brazen attempt to crush local retailers, and I (as did many others) found it distasteful. Sure, I'm a fan of Amazon and devote a substantial portion of my income to its coffers—but does it have to be so wantonly callous about destroying its competitors?
Advertisement
All of which is to say that I was primed to nod in vigorous agreement when I saw novelist Richard Russo's New York Times op-ed taking on Amazon's thuggish ways. But as I waded into Russo's piece—which was widely passed around on Tuesday—I realized that he'd made a critical and common mistake in his argument. Rather than focus on the ways that Amazon's promotion would harm businesses whose demise might actually be a cause for alarm (like a big-box electronics store that hires hundreds of local residents), Russo hangs his tirade on some of the least efficient, least user-friendly, and most mistakenly mythologized local establishments you can find: independent bookstores. Russo and his novelist friends take for granted that sustaining these cultish, moldering institutions is the only way to foster a "real-life literary culture," as writer Tom Perrotta puts it. Russo claims that Amazon, unlike the bookstore down the street, "doesn't care about the larger bookselling universe" and has no interest in fostering "literary culture."
for the rest go here: http://www.slate.com/articles/technol...
December 16, 2011
Robert J. Randisi; Christopher Hitchens
From Robert J. Randisi: Hard on the heels of the newly reissued Gunsmith #'s 1 & 2 comes TRACKER #1: THE WINNING HAND and ANGEL EYES #1: THE MIRACLE OF REVENGE. These series appeared in the 80's under the pseudonyms "Tom Cutter" and "W.B. Longely" but are now being published by Speaking Volumes LLC under the Randisi name, with kick-ass covers! Available in POD paper and Ebook, and soon to be on Audio. Order from the Speaking Volumes LLC website, or Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com.
------------------CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
I have nothing original or important to say about Christopher Hitchens. I do believe he was a fine teacher for a mediocore student of history and politics like me. Even when I disagreed with him I tried to stay calm enough question my own take on a subject. He was a true intellectual dedicated to making his arguments accessible to people willing to learn and to study. He could be as brilliant about ancient politics as our own; and blistering about people he often admired but felt needed a drubbing.
I mentioned staying calm while disagreeing with him. There were two times I couldn't. I thought his book about Mother Theresa was one of the silliest attacks I've ever read. Yes she dealt with dictators to secure food and medicine for the people she served and yes she tried to convert her people into Catholics with daily prayer and the usual conversion drill. I think it was Howard Fineman (I may be wrong) who said of all the terrible despots on the planet you go after Mother Theresa?
The other time was when he angrily advocated for our invasion of Iraq. I stopped reading him for awhile because of that. Throwing in with Cheney-Wolfowitz-Addison was too much for me. Of course Andrew Sullivan pushed for the invasion, too. They often appeared together on the tube. Hitchens would make nasty veiled comments about Sullivan's being gay which I thought was strange because Hitchens (before he discovered women) had several prominent gay affairs himself. At that time I couldn't stand either of them. Sullivan later recanted on the war; Hitchens never did.
Hitchens was an iconolclast and a brave one. Amid all the furor about water boarding Hitchens allowed himself to be water boarded and came away angrily disputing Bush that it wasn't torture. He was also among the first to seriously take on Obama at the time (in Jon Stewart's words) when everybody still thought "he was our boyfriend." He was prescient enough to see that Obama would call on the same Harvard crowd that had helped destroy our economy to help destroy it even further.
When he first began writing about the evils of religion I agreed with him. We have come in this country to believe that religion (Christian, of course) should be an integral part of our politics. I despise this idea. I'm so fucking sick of Believers quoting the Bible to me I now just simply say "We can't talk. You have all the answers." I agree with Hitchens. It's a book of fables reflecting the prejudices of the tribal communities responsible for writing it. I see all these Family Values crackpots on TV and I always wonder how much money they're making for this cynical gig. Like "The Catholic League" which has six (six!) members.
However.
Like Bill Maher I think Hitchens dined out too long on this particular rant. I'm now as sick of the Atheists as I am the Believers.
The Atheists say that an Agnostic is really an Atheist and the Believers say the same thing. I disagree. I'm an Agnostic--I just don't know. I also think that despite the evils of religion (just about any religion) that it does offer its adherents comfort and succor and community. Which used properly--as is the case with most mainstream religions (except for when the Catholic Bishops get involved)--is a good thing.
I realize that my religious rant here was something of a side trail but I must have seen Hitchens on the tube a dozen times arguing about Belief. This was my post game response. It's a disagreement and a minor one compared to the pleasure and insight Hitchens gave me for fifteen years. His prose was electric and his thinking often startling. He was generally on the side of the underdog and treated many media-sanctified overlords with contempt. His scathing take downs were read around the world.
He was my brother in incurable cancer. I've been much luckier than Hitchens. Most of the people with multiple myeloma die in the first three years. I'm entering my tenth year. And Hitchens suffered. It's a terrible way to go, esophogeal cancer. I remember his responses to people who'd write and plead with him to convert to Christianity. He was sweet but firm in his response. He appreciated their well wishing but there would be no deathbed conversion.
I'm not conveying here the sheer genius of the man and how extraordinarily important his words were to our time. As a political and intellectual guide to our era his work is without equal.
December 15, 2011
Forgotten Books: The Killer by Wade Miller
Forgotten Books: The Killer by Wade Miller
Wade Miller was of course Bob Wade and Bill Miller. They collaborated on a few dozen novels until Miller died of a heart attack in the office they shared. He was forty-one.
Much of their best work was done for Gold Medal. The Killer is a fine example. A rich man named Stennis owns a number of banks. His son works in one of them. During a robbery his son is killed. Stennis hires a big game hunter named Farrow to find the notorious bank robber Clel Bocock and his gang. When Farrow locates them he is to call Stennis who wants to be there to watch them die. Farrow is a unique character and not just because of the big game angle. He's middle-aged and feeling it, something rare in that era of crime fiction.
The search for Stennis--and the love story that involves Bocock's wife--takes Farrow from the swamps to Iowa (including, yes, Cedar Rapids) to Wisconsin to Colorado. The place description is extraordinary. Probably too much for today's readers but the Miller books are filled with strong cunning writing. Same for twists and turns. For the length of the first act you can never be sure who anybody is. They're all traveling under assumed names and with shadowy motives. The only thing that binds them is Clel Bocock.
For anybody who thinks that Gold Medals were largely routine crime stories, this is the noel you should pick up. Stark House published this a few years back (still available) along with Devil On Two Sticks, one of the most original mob novels I've ever read. There's also an excellent David Laurence Wilson introduction on the careers of the two writers.
Wade Miller got lost in the shuffle of bringing back the writers of the fifties and sixties. This book, so strong on character and place and plot turns, will demonstrate why more of their books should be in print.
Is Amazon Pushing Publishers to Brink On Terms, Co-op?
Is Amazon Pushing Publishers to Brink On Terms, Co-op?
By Rachel Deahl and Jim Milliot
Dec 15, 2011
| Reader Comments 14
Last week Amazon caused a furor in the bookselling world, with its reveal of a price check app consumers could use in bricks-and-mortar stores to get discounts at the retailer. Although the app did not include books, its announcement offered many a chance to slam Amazon as a ruthless corporation out to destroy the community bookstore and, as Richard Russo claimed in the New York Times, literary culture along with it. Although the price check app is what continues to be discussed in the media, what has publishers riled, behind the scenes, is aggressive moves the retailer is making in its demands on co-op and discounts. A number of sources in the industry, all of whom spoke to PW on the condition of anonymity, said the retailer is, in certain cases, threatening to stop selling titles from companies who won't pay up.
Many sources said Amazon has been asking for a steeper wholesale discount on books. (Although e-books are sold on the agency model, print books continue to be sold on the wholesale model, in which retailers purchase titles at a certain percentage off the list price.) Co-op requests from Amazon have also escalated, according to a number of insiders. Although publishers and distributors regularly have discussions with Amazon about these issues--negotiating the terms on these matters is a standard aspect of doing business--the retailer's requests, in recent weeks, have sent shocks through many in the industry, some of whom are worried about what will happen to their books if they cannot meet the demands.
Publishers and distributors have called the latest negotiations with Amazon the most adversarial to date, and many have noted that, for the first time, the retailer is outlining co-op costs for digital, as well as print. Amazon has, as some sources explained, long been pressuring publishers to provide ancillary content on the pages where their books are sold, from videos and q&a's to links to similar books. That content has always been something publishers have had to both pay for and provide. In the latest negotiations with Amazon, sources told PW, the price of providing that content has jumped to what sources say are astronomical percentages (but those sources would not provide specific numbers).
Many publishers and distributors said they have not, and cannot, cave to this newest set of demands from Amazon. The fear, though, is that the retailer could take punitive action. Recalling the most infamous instance of what can happen to a publisher that refuses Amazon's terms, many cite the showdown between Macmillan and Amazon when, in February 2010, the retailer removed the buy buttons to all Macmillan titles after the publisher said it would sell its e-books to the retailer on agency terms, as opposed to wholesale terms.
Although publishers fear seeing their titles disappear from Amazon--for many in the industry the retailer accounts for 20% to 25% of their business--some say the demands the retailer is making are impossible to meet and would nearly wipe out all of their profits there anyway. Furthermore, as some have noted, changing wholesale terms with Amazon, could present a legal issue. Although co-op deals can be varied and private, publishers are prevented by the Robinson-Patman Act from favoring one account over another with notably different wholesale terms. (It was the broad discrepancy in discount terms among accounts that led the ABA to sue Barnes & Noble and Borders in the 1990s.)
The demands regarding co-op have some particularly on edge. Not only are many publishers frustrated about being asked to pay more money for content they are providing, but the whole notion of co-op at the online retailer is unsettling. While the case can be made that co-op in a bricks-and -mortar store is a worthwhile investment--money is spent on getting books to physical areas of the store, such as front tables, where consumers will see those books first--it's much less logical on a Web site. Does having a video or an author Q&A on a book's page on Amazon really encourage a customer who has already clicked on that book to make a purchase?
More problematically, for many in the industry, the latest talks with Amazon are being described as less of a dialogue than a dictation of terms. As one source explained, the talks have boiled down to "what publishers can do for Amazon, and not what Amazon can do for publishers." Most ironically, the new terms would allow Amazon to continue to gain market share as it always has: driving book prices down. As one source put it: "If Amazon wants to improve its margins, it should cut back on the discounting."
By Rachel Deahl and Jim Milliot
Dec 15, 2011
| Reader Comments 14
Last week Amazon caused a furor in the bookselling world, with its reveal of a price check app consumers could use in bricks-and-mortar stores to get discounts at the retailer. Although the app did not include books, its announcement offered many a chance to slam Amazon as a ruthless corporation out to destroy the community bookstore and, as Richard Russo claimed in the New York Times, literary culture along with it. Although the price check app is what continues to be discussed in the media, what has publishers riled, behind the scenes, is aggressive moves the retailer is making in its demands on co-op and discounts. A number of sources in the industry, all of whom spoke to PW on the condition of anonymity, said the retailer is, in certain cases, threatening to stop selling titles from companies who won't pay up.
Many sources said Amazon has been asking for a steeper wholesale discount on books. (Although e-books are sold on the agency model, print books continue to be sold on the wholesale model, in which retailers purchase titles at a certain percentage off the list price.) Co-op requests from Amazon have also escalated, according to a number of insiders. Although publishers and distributors regularly have discussions with Amazon about these issues--negotiating the terms on these matters is a standard aspect of doing business--the retailer's requests, in recent weeks, have sent shocks through many in the industry, some of whom are worried about what will happen to their books if they cannot meet the demands.
Publishers and distributors have called the latest negotiations with Amazon the most adversarial to date, and many have noted that, for the first time, the retailer is outlining co-op costs for digital, as well as print. Amazon has, as some sources explained, long been pressuring publishers to provide ancillary content on the pages where their books are sold, from videos and q&a's to links to similar books. That content has always been something publishers have had to both pay for and provide. In the latest negotiations with Amazon, sources told PW, the price of providing that content has jumped to what sources say are astronomical percentages (but those sources would not provide specific numbers).
Many publishers and distributors said they have not, and cannot, cave to this newest set of demands from Amazon. The fear, though, is that the retailer could take punitive action. Recalling the most infamous instance of what can happen to a publisher that refuses Amazon's terms, many cite the showdown between Macmillan and Amazon when, in February 2010, the retailer removed the buy buttons to all Macmillan titles after the publisher said it would sell its e-books to the retailer on agency terms, as opposed to wholesale terms.
Although publishers fear seeing their titles disappear from Amazon--for many in the industry the retailer accounts for 20% to 25% of their business--some say the demands the retailer is making are impossible to meet and would nearly wipe out all of their profits there anyway. Furthermore, as some have noted, changing wholesale terms with Amazon, could present a legal issue. Although co-op deals can be varied and private, publishers are prevented by the Robinson-Patman Act from favoring one account over another with notably different wholesale terms. (It was the broad discrepancy in discount terms among accounts that led the ABA to sue Barnes & Noble and Borders in the 1990s.)
The demands regarding co-op have some particularly on edge. Not only are many publishers frustrated about being asked to pay more money for content they are providing, but the whole notion of co-op at the online retailer is unsettling. While the case can be made that co-op in a bricks-and -mortar store is a worthwhile investment--money is spent on getting books to physical areas of the store, such as front tables, where consumers will see those books first--it's much less logical on a Web site. Does having a video or an author Q&A on a book's page on Amazon really encourage a customer who has already clicked on that book to make a purchase?
More problematically, for many in the industry, the latest talks with Amazon are being described as less of a dialogue than a dictation of terms. As one source explained, the talks have boiled down to "what publishers can do for Amazon, and not what Amazon can do for publishers." Most ironically, the new terms would allow Amazon to continue to gain market share as it always has: driving book prices down. As one source put it: "If Amazon wants to improve its margins, it should cut back on the discounting."
Ed Gorman's Blog
- Ed Gorman's profile
- 118 followers
Ed Gorman isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
