Nicola Griffith's Blog, page 112
August 27, 2012
Publishing-related tidbits and some wild guesses
I'm still catching up on news that might be of interest from the last ten days or so. Today: publishing.
Last week, the Department of Justice accused publishers of wanting to be treated like Special Snowflakes:
I have little doubt that the matter will be settled soon. Very soon. The DoJ will prevail. This is going to mean big, big changes. For one thing, some Big Six publishers will be playing by different rules from the others. I suspect that there will soon be an Astonishing Merger (though I've no idea how quickly this will happen). If someone put a gun to my head and made me pull something out of thin air, I'd say that Random House will acquire HarperCollins. Is this very likely? Well, no, but making this kind of wild guess/juxtaposition is one of the ways I both entertain myself and learn to not fall into a rut when it comes to thinking about my business: how it works, and why, and who benefits.
Anyway, if you tie that notion of big change into Amazon's announcement of an up-coming Big Press Conference for September 6, it's difficult not to wonder. My guess is that they'll be introducing Kindle Fires of various iterations: possibly a 10" version (though more probably a sleeker, faster, more featured 7", and something backlit). It wouldn't shock me if they also announced some kind of publishing infrastructure surprise. They've been very quiet lately, so I bet something's brewing. But we'll find out soon enough. I wonder if it will be the long-awaited showroom (or acquisition of, or partnering with, bookstores that would serve as same). See note on wild guesses, above.
One thing's for sure, they won't be introducing this retro typewriter for iPad:
(Via AppNewser)
Last week, the Department of Justice accused publishers of wanting to be treated like Special Snowflakes:
The DoJ maintains that arguments made by the parties that the government doesn’t understand the e-book business is just a variation made by other industries at other times. “While e-books are a relatively new arrival on the publishing scene, a plea for special treatment under the antitrust laws is an old standby,” the DoJ wrote. “Railroads, publishers, lawyers, construction engineers, health care providers, and oil companies are just some of the voices that have raised cries against ‘ruinous competition’ over the decades. Time and time again the courts have rejected the invitation to exempt particular businesses from the reach of the Sherman Act.” (Publishers Weekly)Well, okay, they didn't actually call them special snowflakes, but Courtney Milan, in a post definitely worth reading, did:
Your Unspecial Antitrust Snowflake
This post is for those publishing professionals who think that if they can just get the DOJ to understand the argument that publishing is special, the lawsuit against the agency publishers will magically vanish.
These people have probably not taken a look at the history of price-fixing. Every industry that has been socked with a price-fixing complaint has argued that it is special, and if only the court understood how special it was, the court would agree that it should have the capacity to fix prices. Every industry. I don’t know why every industry feels it has to make this argument, but they all lose—every single time.
This blog post is a "greatest hits" of antitrust—throwing together a smattering of cases in which industries have argued that they should be exempt from antitrust law, that the Court simply doesn’t understand the industry, and that if only it did, they would prevail! (via Dear Author)If you have a subscription, Publishers Marketplace also has analysis.
I have little doubt that the matter will be settled soon. Very soon. The DoJ will prevail. This is going to mean big, big changes. For one thing, some Big Six publishers will be playing by different rules from the others. I suspect that there will soon be an Astonishing Merger (though I've no idea how quickly this will happen). If someone put a gun to my head and made me pull something out of thin air, I'd say that Random House will acquire HarperCollins. Is this very likely? Well, no, but making this kind of wild guess/juxtaposition is one of the ways I both entertain myself and learn to not fall into a rut when it comes to thinking about my business: how it works, and why, and who benefits.
Anyway, if you tie that notion of big change into Amazon's announcement of an up-coming Big Press Conference for September 6, it's difficult not to wonder. My guess is that they'll be introducing Kindle Fires of various iterations: possibly a 10" version (though more probably a sleeker, faster, more featured 7", and something backlit). It wouldn't shock me if they also announced some kind of publishing infrastructure surprise. They've been very quiet lately, so I bet something's brewing. But we'll find out soon enough. I wonder if it will be the long-awaited showroom (or acquisition of, or partnering with, bookstores that would serve as same). See note on wild guesses, above.
One thing's for sure, they won't be introducing this retro typewriter for iPad:
(Via AppNewser)
August 25, 2012
More on nuns, money, and the evolution of language
I know, I've been largely absent. Life is just being very, hm, lifelike at the moment. But here's a long, juicy post of some of the things I've found interesting in the last ten days or so.
We'll start with language. The Economist has a piece on the origins and evolution of Indo-European, the ur-tongue of the people stretching from Australia, Indian, Turkey, the Mediterranean and Western Europe:
In the Guardian, Ali Smith talks about style vs. form. I'm not sure it's really possible to draw a meaningful distinction. The words we choose, the order in which we place them, creates the story, people, theme, emotion, atmosphere, subject and object we are describing. But Smith lays it all out as only she can:
From USA Today an article about the LCWR's 'conservative rival' organization, the CMSWR:
----
* And guess who runs those programmes? Right: nuns. And not the contemplative, cloistered nuns of CMSWR but the roll-their-sleeves-up types in the LCWR.
We'll start with language. The Economist has a piece on the origins and evolution of Indo-European, the ur-tongue of the people stretching from Australia, Indian, Turkey, the Mediterranean and Western Europe:
In 2003 a team led by Quentin Atkinson, of the University of Auckland, in New Zealand, employed a computer to generate a genealogical tree of Indo-European languages. Their model put the birth of the family, which includes languages as seemingly diverse as Icelandic and Iranian, between 9,800 and 7,800 years ago. This was consistent with the idea that it stemmed from Anatolia, in modern-day Turkey, whence it spread with the expansion of farming.A new report in Science settles the question once and for all. If you like pictures better than words, you can watch a nifty animation of the spread of the language family here.
In the Guardian, Ali Smith talks about style vs. form. I'm not sure it's really possible to draw a meaningful distinction. The words we choose, the order in which we place them, creates the story, people, theme, emotion, atmosphere, subject and object we are describing. But Smith lays it all out as only she can:
It's the easiest argument in the world, and one of the most specious, style v content. The cliched view of literary style, especially style which draws attention to itself as style, is that it's a surface thing, a thing of appearance, a skin-deep thing; a fraudulent thing, not the real thing, blocking us from what it's trying to say even as it says it.
But everything written has style.The biggest organisation of American nuns, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), have had their conference to decide on how to respond to the Vatican's appointment of an overseer (which I discussed here). As the National Catholic Reporter notes, they've decided on a strategy:
"Religious life, as it is lived by the women religious who comprise LCWR, is an authentic expression of this life that must not be compromised," [the statement] said.
"The assembly instructed the LCWR officers to conduct their conversation with Archbishop Sartain from a stance of deep prayer that values mutual respect, careful listening and open dialogue," the statement said. "The officers will proceed with these discussions as long as possible, but will reconsider if LCWR is forced to compromise the integrity of its mission."
[...]
When the final draft was read aloud at Friday’s afternoon executive session, said Benedictine Sr. Anne Sheperd, the group gave a "lasting standing ovation" to the final draft.
Asked what she hopes to receive in dialogue with Sartain, Farrell said LCWR wants "to be recognized and be understood as equal in the church."Equal, in this context, is a powder keg word. The vatican has been explicit: women obey men. More particularly: nuns must obey bishops. I couldn't begin to say where this will end up. I have such mixed feelings: I'm delighted that the nuns aren't going to take it lying down; I'm dreading the possible consequences for these women. Are they doing the right thing? Absolutely. Will it end well? The odds aren't very good. But the American Catholic church is the financial mainstay of the global church. What happens here is of consequence to the Vatican. Let's wait and see. If you want more detail, go read the LCWR's press release, and their take on how the first sit-down with their appointed overseer went. Note the reiteration that their take on religion "is an authentic expression of this life that must not be compromised."
From USA Today an article about the LCWR's 'conservative rival' organization, the CMSWR:
Often overlooked in the coverage of the LCWR showdown, they largely belong to a separate organization, called the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, that the Vatican set up in 1992 as traditional alternative — some say a conservative rival — to the more progressive LCWR.More on the Catholic church, this time the way it handles money. The Economist has strong words:
[...]
[T]he CMSWR communities are growing, and getting younger, which has many fans saying that they represent the future of women's religious communities precisely because they reflect the past with confidence and with no discussion of dissent.
OF ALL the organisations that serve America’s poor, few do more good work than the Catholic church: its schools and hospitals provide a lifeline for millions.* Yet even taking these virtues into account, the finances of the Catholic church in America are an unholy mess. [..] The church’s finances look poorly co-ordinated considering (or perhaps because of) their complexity. The management of money is often sloppy. And some parts of the church have indulged in ungainly financial contortions in some cases—it is alleged—both to divert funds away from uses intended by donors and to frustrate creditors with legitimate claims, including its own nuns and priests.This one is most definitely worth reading.
----
* And guess who runs those programmes? Right: nuns. And not the contemplative, cloistered nuns of CMSWR but the roll-their-sleeves-up types in the LCWR.
August 20, 2012
Writers are not happy with their publishers
From the UK last week: a survey of published authors. Two-thirds of respondents have published three or more books. And nearly three-quarters were published by a Big Six UK publisher (Random House, HarperCollins, etc.), a serious independent press (Faber, Canongate, etc.), or academic/educational/professional outfit (such as a university press). In other words, not amateurs.
In my thoughts below I'm paraphrasing the results and so, no doubt, taking liberties of interpretation. But, hey, the data's there for all to see. Go look for yourself.
First of all, and no surprise: the money is pitiful. Around 59% of the writers surveyed got an advance of less than ₤5,000 for their most recent book. (Remember, the majority of these writers have published three or more books with big, serious publishers. And given that most books take at least a year to write--it takes me longer--this is abysmally far from a living wage.) Despite that, during the first few questions the publishers seem to be coming out well: nearly three-quarters of respondents found the editorial input from their publishers good or excellent, and more than 80% thought the production values to be so. When it comes to feeling paid promptly--which, for this author at least, is one of the prime indicators of satisfaction--this sinks a bit to about two-thirds.
But then everything goes to hell.
Marketing and communications is clearly a big problem: well over three-quarters felt unguided by the publisher. About half felt that communication after publication was poor. As a result, nearly three-quarters of these professional writers are seriously considering self-publishing in the future.
I haven't seen data like these from North America or Australia or India, never mind other-language markets, so it's difficult to extrapolate to literature in general. But I feel it safe to say that a substantial number of writers in the UK are less than happy with the way things currently work in publishing.
In most professions, this level of unhappiness would lead to change: industrial action, radical reform, or mass exodus. But (and I speak from personal experience) writers are lazy people, and publishing as a field has a history of whingeing.
Nonetheless, if were to extrapolate from this survey to the future of publishing in this country, I'd predict divergence of the writing ecosystem into at least three layers:
The Ivy League of writers who attend the best MFA courses and sell their literary fiction or creative non-fiction to the top tier old-school presses (FSG, Knopf, etc). These presses, in turn, sell their books via all the usual online retailers; through carefully curated reading series; and in the few remaining, powerful indie bookstores. The books will be reviewed on NPR, in the NYTRB, and on the biggest book websites.Young, fiery self-pubbed phenoms who will be astoundingly creative at raising money, crowd-sourcing skills and resources, and finding new ways to sell.A colourful variety of nimble hybrid presses who fill the in-between space, recruiting from both proven self-pubbers and litfic grandees who fancy changing their game. Some will be d-only, some p-only, some p-o-d, some bundling all of the above with performance or education; some paying advances, some profit-sharing. Etc. That is, every permutation you can think of, and no doubt many we can't yet.In other words--and no surprises here, either--the changes we've already seen will accelerate. In the way of all change it will happen a little bit at a time and then all at once.
I'd love to see a similar survey of editors, and independent booksellers, and literary marketing professionals, and from more than one country. Then we'd start to really get a picture of what's going on. But this I'm sure of: change is. We are in it. Enjoy the ride.
In my thoughts below I'm paraphrasing the results and so, no doubt, taking liberties of interpretation. But, hey, the data's there for all to see. Go look for yourself.
First of all, and no surprise: the money is pitiful. Around 59% of the writers surveyed got an advance of less than ₤5,000 for their most recent book. (Remember, the majority of these writers have published three or more books with big, serious publishers. And given that most books take at least a year to write--it takes me longer--this is abysmally far from a living wage.) Despite that, during the first few questions the publishers seem to be coming out well: nearly three-quarters of respondents found the editorial input from their publishers good or excellent, and more than 80% thought the production values to be so. When it comes to feeling paid promptly--which, for this author at least, is one of the prime indicators of satisfaction--this sinks a bit to about two-thirds.
But then everything goes to hell.
Marketing and communications is clearly a big problem: well over three-quarters felt unguided by the publisher. About half felt that communication after publication was poor. As a result, nearly three-quarters of these professional writers are seriously considering self-publishing in the future.
I haven't seen data like these from North America or Australia or India, never mind other-language markets, so it's difficult to extrapolate to literature in general. But I feel it safe to say that a substantial number of writers in the UK are less than happy with the way things currently work in publishing.
In most professions, this level of unhappiness would lead to change: industrial action, radical reform, or mass exodus. But (and I speak from personal experience) writers are lazy people, and publishing as a field has a history of whingeing.
Nonetheless, if were to extrapolate from this survey to the future of publishing in this country, I'd predict divergence of the writing ecosystem into at least three layers:
The Ivy League of writers who attend the best MFA courses and sell their literary fiction or creative non-fiction to the top tier old-school presses (FSG, Knopf, etc). These presses, in turn, sell their books via all the usual online retailers; through carefully curated reading series; and in the few remaining, powerful indie bookstores. The books will be reviewed on NPR, in the NYTRB, and on the biggest book websites.Young, fiery self-pubbed phenoms who will be astoundingly creative at raising money, crowd-sourcing skills and resources, and finding new ways to sell.A colourful variety of nimble hybrid presses who fill the in-between space, recruiting from both proven self-pubbers and litfic grandees who fancy changing their game. Some will be d-only, some p-only, some p-o-d, some bundling all of the above with performance or education; some paying advances, some profit-sharing. Etc. That is, every permutation you can think of, and no doubt many we can't yet.In other words--and no surprises here, either--the changes we've already seen will accelerate. In the way of all change it will happen a little bit at a time and then all at once.
I'd love to see a similar survey of editors, and independent booksellers, and literary marketing professionals, and from more than one country. Then we'd start to really get a picture of what's going on. But this I'm sure of: change is. We are in it. Enjoy the ride.
August 19, 2012
Tightrope
Because Sunday is for music. And there's nothing at all wrong with watching a good looking woman dancing (and she can dance) in a tux...
Via @ShermanAlexie
Via @ShermanAlexie
August 18, 2012
Terms of Service; Didn't Read
“I have read and agree to the Terms” is the biggest lie on the web. We aim to fix that.We are a user rights initiative to rate and label website terms & privacy policies, from very good Class A to very bad Class E
Terms of Service; Didn't Read is a very cool initiative. If you have a detail-oriented mind, a bit of free time, and a passion for privacy and transparency on the web, they'd love to get your help.
They've already rated a few services (SoundCloud good, Twitpic bad) but their list of those that need attention is long. I'm really looking forward to finding out how the Google ToS compares, for example, with Twitter, and Apple witih Microsoft. Any bets?
Terms of Service; Didn't Read is a very cool initiative. If you have a detail-oriented mind, a bit of free time, and a passion for privacy and transparency on the web, they'd love to get your help.
They've already rated a few services (SoundCloud good, Twitpic bad) but their list of those that need attention is long. I'm really looking forward to finding out how the Google ToS compares, for example, with Twitter, and Apple witih Microsoft. Any bets?
August 17, 2012
A pretty way to die
This is bornite (Cu5FeS4), also known as peacock copper, for obvious reasons. It's from Montana, courtesy of our neighbour, and beautiful, and heavy.
As you can see, it's small, but if I threw that at your forehead with sufficient force, you wouldn't get up again. A pretty way to die.
Why, yes! I am back in Hild world, thank you for asking. I'm researching and pondering Book II and so thinking violently again. Lovely!
As I ponder I'll be using this lump of shiny goodness as a paperweight for all my notes and vaguely hoping for an opportunity to use it for it's true purpose...
August 15, 2012
Harry Harrison
Harry Harrison died this morning. He was the author of (among others) the Deathworld trilogy, The Stainless Steel Rat series, and Make Room! Make Room!
I never met him, but I read his books. My favourites? Deathworld 1 and 3. And of those two, probably the latter. It taught me the uses of history and the remorselessness of cultural change. All that and swords and ponies. I loved it. I would like to have met him and told him so.
In his memory, I think it would be a fine thing for all of us to go read a book we love and then tell its author why.
I never met him, but I read his books. My favourites? Deathworld 1 and 3. And of those two, probably the latter. It taught me the uses of history and the remorselessness of cultural change. All that and swords and ponies. I loved it. I would like to have met him and told him so.
In his memory, I think it would be a fine thing for all of us to go read a book we love and then tell its author why.
August 14, 2012
Want to help put a lesbian in the Senate?
This morning I was reading the Wall Street Journal (an excellent paper if you ignore the editorial pages) and came across a photo of the four candidates battling it out in Wisconsin to be the Republican candidate for the Senate. I burst out laughing: they all looked the same. Same grey suit. Same red tie. Same mid-brown-to-grey hair. Same hair cut--though two parted on the left and two on the right. All white. All boys. The similarities were so striking that for one wild moment I thought it might be a joke. (See the photo for yourself here. ETA: I forgot, you need a subscription for that. Sorry.)
I drank more tea, regained perspective, and moved on.
Later, at my desk, I read in The Advocate (also an excellent paper, though I thought their recent piece on quiltbag biography was rather shoddy--why so few women?), that the Democratic candidate who will face the grey-suited, red-tied Republican in the Senate race will be...Tammy Baldwin.
I burst out laughing again, this time in delight. My delight was compounded when I read that Baldwin will be the first candidate endorsed and supported by the lesbian Super PAC, (LPAC).
But here's the thing. Baldwin (an advocate of social justice, women's rights, and marriage equality) will need every penny she can get. Her Republican opponent (not an advocate of social justice, very probably anti-abortion, and doubtless against same-sex marriage) will be funded by people like the Koch brothers. So if you want to see the first lesbian (the first out queer person) Senator this year, and if you have some money to spare, go give it to LPAC. And let the games begin...
I drank more tea, regained perspective, and moved on.
Later, at my desk, I read in The Advocate (also an excellent paper, though I thought their recent piece on quiltbag biography was rather shoddy--why so few women?), that the Democratic candidate who will face the grey-suited, red-tied Republican in the Senate race will be...Tammy Baldwin.
I burst out laughing again, this time in delight. My delight was compounded when I read that Baldwin will be the first candidate endorsed and supported by the lesbian Super PAC, (LPAC).
But here's the thing. Baldwin (an advocate of social justice, women's rights, and marriage equality) will need every penny she can get. Her Republican opponent (not an advocate of social justice, very probably anti-abortion, and doubtless against same-sex marriage) will be funded by people like the Koch brothers. So if you want to see the first lesbian (the first out queer person) Senator this year, and if you have some money to spare, go give it to LPAC. And let the games begin...
Science fiction awards database
Oooh, look at this: the Science Fiction Awards Database, put together by Mark Kelly for the Locus Foundation. (Thanks to Cheryl Morgan for the link. And Kelly, of course, for compiling all the stats: very, very nifty.)
Being more than only human, I went to look at my own page--and was delighted to discover that my novelette, "It Takes Two," took second place for the 2010 Locus Award. Who knew? (Well, obviously lots of people. The writer is always the last to know...)
There's something very gratifying about seeing a list of awards like that. If only I could persuade some kind person to create a list that includes all my non-sf awards... Oh, wait, it's called an Artist's Resume and I built one of those earlier this year. Then spent the next week swinging like an emotional pendulum from godlike to unclean. As a result, I've come to the conclusion that it's really not healthy to chortle and croon over one's outside validation. I think Martha Graham was right: It's not an artist's job to decide how good her work is, nor how valuable to others; an artist's job is to keep the channel open.
Being more than only human, I went to look at my own page--and was delighted to discover that my novelette, "It Takes Two," took second place for the 2010 Locus Award. Who knew? (Well, obviously lots of people. The writer is always the last to know...)
There's something very gratifying about seeing a list of awards like that. If only I could persuade some kind person to create a list that includes all my non-sf awards... Oh, wait, it's called an Artist's Resume and I built one of those earlier this year. Then spent the next week swinging like an emotional pendulum from godlike to unclean. As a result, I've come to the conclusion that it's really not healthy to chortle and croon over one's outside validation. I think Martha Graham was right: It's not an artist's job to decide how good her work is, nor how valuable to others; an artist's job is to keep the channel open.
August 13, 2012
Orange to Apple?
It used to be called the Orange Prize for fiction, but Orange announced a while ago that, due to its merger with T-Mobile, it won't be renewing sponsorship. Currently it's vaguely referred to as the women's Prize for Fiction. But if the rumours from the Telegraph are true, soon it might be the Apple (or iBooks, or iPad, or other product name) Prize for Fiction.
If I were Apple, I'd be tempted to call it the Mac Book Prize. But, eh, that's just because the writer's brain likes to play. Apple are much more likely to tout a more-firmly reading-related product.
To me, one of the most interesting things about this whole story isn't that Apple is interested in sponsorship (though that is interesting), it's that so many other companies are, too--eighteen, at last count. I don't know how much it costs to run a prize like this, but my guess would be somewhere around $500,000 a year. That's a significant chunk of change. Those eighteen corporations must understand the power of the book, the influence of story and the culture surrounding it.
That's a lovely way to start the week.
If I were Apple, I'd be tempted to call it the Mac Book Prize. But, eh, that's just because the writer's brain likes to play. Apple are much more likely to tout a more-firmly reading-related product.
To me, one of the most interesting things about this whole story isn't that Apple is interested in sponsorship (though that is interesting), it's that so many other companies are, too--eighteen, at last count. I don't know how much it costs to run a prize like this, but my guess would be somewhere around $500,000 a year. That's a significant chunk of change. Those eighteen corporations must understand the power of the book, the influence of story and the culture surrounding it.
That's a lovely way to start the week.
