Hugo Awards Are Out

Perfect? No, not so much. Relevant and important to the future of the genre? Unquestionably. The 72nd World Science Fiction Convention at Loncon 3, has announced the 2014 Hugo Award winners. And before you say something as ridiculous as “the Hugos don’t matter anyway” think for a moment on the 3587 valid ballots that were counted to determine this year’s winners. Such a tiny number of people voting, yet the impact of this award is pretty amazing. If you have a problem with the Hugo you should realize that you, all by your lonesome, can still change how this thing works. Participate, be friendly, be open to discussion and get ready for 2015.

Now, I want to send out some good vibes to everyone. Nomination is still a high bar and winners, you’re this year’s rocks stars.

BEST NOVEL

Ancillary Justice, by Ann Leckie (Orbit US / Orbit UK)

BEST NOVELLA

“Equoid” by Charles Stross (Tor.com, 09-2013)

BEST NOVELETTE

“The Lady Astronaut of Mars” by Mary Robinette Kowal (maryrobinettekowal.com /
Tor.com, 09-2013)

BEST SHORT STORY

“The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere” by John Chu (Tor.com, 02-2013)

BEST RELATED WORK

“We Have Always Fought: Challenging the Women, Cattle and Slaves Narrative” by Kameron Hurley (A Dribble of Ink)

BEST GRAPHIC STORY

“Time” by Randall Munroe (xkcd)

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, LONG FORM

Gravity written by Alfonso Cuarón & Jonás Cuarón, directed by Alfonso Cuarón (Esperanto Filmoj; Heyday Films;Warner Bros.)

BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, SHORT FORM

Game of Thrones “The Rains of Castamere” written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by David Nutter (HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)

BEST EDITOR, SHORT FORM

Ellen Datlow

BEST EDITOR, LONG FORM

Ginjer Buchanan

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST

Julie Dillon

BEST SEMIPROZINE

Lightspeed Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams, Rich Horton, and Stefan Rudnicki

BEST FANZINE

A Dribble of Ink edited by Aidan Moher

BEST FANCAST

SF Signal Podcast, Patrick Hester

BEST FAN WRITER

Kameron Hurley

BEST FAN ARTIST

Sarah Webb

JOHN W. CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER

Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2012 or 2013, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).

Sofia Samatar

I Hate Conflict

Yep, this author really does not like it very much. My problem with conflict is that it gums things up, making it more difficult or impossible to get anything done. As I’ve gotten older I’ve come to realize that there is no escaping it, and eventually, if you’re involved in any pursuit where conflict is happening you may actually need to chose a side. I hate that most of all because I usually find myself not agreeing with any particular party. If party A is busy bickering with party B over something that ultimately just creates obstacles for me, why should I line up with either?

The whole Amazon v Hachette cluster event has once again taken center stage. Instead of focusing on some highly anticipated releases, the ring leaders are begging for all the attention. They want to know that we support them in their cause. They’re writing open letters, building grass roots media campaigns, and waving big banners.

Friday evening, what should appear in my inbox, but a letter from The Amazon Books Team with the subject “An Important Kindle request.” Within this multi-page tome (and I possess a big monitor) I’ve been obliged to take Amazon’s side in this contemporary cluster event of monumental proportions. If we just hold hands, sing songs, and spam our adversaries with emails we can eventually go back to pretending to be nice to one another. After reading this letter I felt dirty.

Amazon would love for you to buy into the idea that they’re on the side of readers. Hachette wants you to trust that they’re on the side of creatives. In my opinion, both of these companies couldn’t give less of a damn about readers or writers. Here’s why.

  • In Amazon’s letter to Kindle authors they liken the rise of ebooks to the historical shift in publishing between hard bound and paper backed books. Their history is on the fuzzy side, but that doesn’t really matter. What does matter is Amazon’s claim that the ebook can revolutionize book sales the way that paperbacks did somewhere between WW1 and Vietnam.I find it perplexing that as a distributor of books, Amazon fails to realize that words have value. People, good people in fact, spend lots and lots of time and effort collecting those words into big piles. They’re banking on the notion that a lower price point will increase sales volumetrically. Fast and cheap is what they’re going for in their segment of publishing, but this is incredibly shortsighted of the company. As an author who first bleeds on the page and then slaves away at revisions until I’m cross eyed, I don’t want readers stuffing their Kindles with my work. This does me absolutely no good. That kindle stuffed with cheap words will never get read and the return I can expect regardless of how I publish will always be much, much lower. Amazon is pushing writers to produce more if they want any hope of maintaining financial viability. You get to choose two: fast, cheap, or good. By chasing cheap, and pushing fast, they’re losing good.

    The whole Readers United bit seems concocted. It’s like eating soylent green snack cakes. Amazon is clearly trying to win my support in their corporate struggle but they are not actually doing anything to gain my support. So like a big, self-interested, for-profit company.

    If you’re a reader and you think this is a good thing, think again. Short term, with the ever-decreasing value of the printed word, each time you buy a mobi on your Kindle Paperwhite™ you’re likely wasting your hard earned money. You’ve given me a sale, but I’ve lost a reader because Kindle-stuffers don’t read, they collect. Long term it is actions like this that push down prices on everyone’s works, thereby devaluing the cost of the written word to the point where it becomes a worthless pursuit for creatives. I’m not motivated to write and then jump through hoops to publish something at a net loss.

  • Hachette has brought out their honor guard to make the point that Amazon is an evil, multimillion dollar, monopolistic company whose only concern is hurting Hachette’s precious writers. “It’s not our fault that Amazon chooses to behave this way,” they’re saying. “Be on our side because we’re the good guys, ebooks at a slightly higher price point ($14.99 instead of $9.99) just means that much more money will end up in the hands of the people who really deserve it.”I’m not buying this line either. Hachette has its own turf effort underway. A bunch of big name authors have published an open letter in which they “respectfully ask you, our loyal readers, to email Jeff Bezos, CEO and founder of Amazon and tell him what you think.” Guys, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you lost agency when you sold the rights to your work. Sure, what Amazon is doing is craptastic. Refusing to accept pre-orders on Hachette authors’ books and eBooks, refusing to discount the prices of many of Hachette authors’ books, slowing the delivery of thousands of Hachette authors’ books to Amazon customers, and indicating that delivery will take as long as several weeks on some titles is the opposite of what any company formed around the idea of efficient, low-cost distribution of goods should be doing. This is how the bully behaves, but Hachette seemingly hasn’t seen fit to make any move to help these authors. Amazon is stoking the fire, Hachette is making certain that the shackles are nice and tight.

    The painful part of this effort is that each and every one of the people that signed this open letter seems just fine with the heat. By bandwagoning Hachette’s efforts you’ve effectively let this company off the hook for their part in this kerfuffle.

Neither of these companies is doing anything for the people that they say they care about. Authors don’t make any more if either of them win. Reading doesn’t get any better if either of them win. From the perspective of the people that matter, this is all lose-lose. We lose because attention within a saturated media market is necessarily diverted to business matters pertaining solely to middlemen.

What do I want? Amazon and Hachette to sit down and work things out; both of these companies need to solve this problem sooner than later. They’re hurting everyone who creates or consumes. These business entities are losing business. Do I hate either of these companies? Not so much — they both have a lot to offer. I’m a businessman working at the creative end of this funnel. When things go wrong, when things get stopped up, I notice. But that’s just it, I am interested in selling my stories, not winning some sort of imagined moral battle.

We’re not on the verge of some epic ebook publishing breakthrough, neither are we at the threshold of some amazing renaissance of traditional publishing self distribution. Rather we seem to be hopelessly bogged down in some sort of middleman mire. Amazon, you’ll never get anywhere bullying Hachette authors. If you want to win authors over to your way of thinking, offer them a better deal. Hachette, you’ll never get anywhere pretending you hold some sort of moral high ground. If you want to win readers over to your way of thinking, give readers a better deal.

DetCon1 Redux (Part One)

I’m sitting just outside the DTW jetty that will eventually have a plane parked at its other end. This plane will take me to PHX and thence further on, and hopefully home, to SEA. While I sit, sipping an iced chai from the coffee stand down the concourse, I’ve been reviewing the last four days. Trying to form the lessons I’ve learned into something I can use moving forward. Articulate the wisdom of those who have gone before me.

I should note that in addition to all the learning and networking I had an awesome time. The North American Science Fiction Convention happened to to intersect with the NetRoots Nation convention. This proved a particularly good sort of kismet for all involved. Every time I had a little down time I was approached by someone from the adjacent affair who would invariably say something like “What’s this all about?” or “I don’t read science fiction, but I want to more ….” In some small way all that curiosity and social boundary crossing I think enriched the experience for all involved. Plus, I believe the verdict was that DetCon1 had the better room parties.

Matt Thyer and Jim Hines

From the get-go my convention schedule seemed subject to change. The Vice President’s visit to the same building meant that I got stuck in some amazing traffic. As a connoisseur of the finest road bound cluster events in Norther America and beyond I can say that this was a classic Interstate stoppage. Ultimately, this meant that I missed my scheduled reading. But don’t feel bummed for me because the agile and capable staff running the convention from the table in the green room busted a move and helped me find a spot on Saturday. Opposite Jim Hines. Which was awesome. Did I happen to mention I read opposite Jim Hines? I should probably say that again, opposite Jim Hines.

Had I nothing to read other than a crap pile of words I would still fail to see how this could have gone badly for me. Jim Hines…. Rather my first reading at a convention turned out to be a fairy tale princess event with butter and bacon. We (and mostly he) packed the room. It was standing room only and as we got ready I couldn’t help grinning madly because I knew that I had selected a black arrow from my quiver.

Chapter four of the second book in the “sports in space” series is about the naval space program’s super secret Atlatl gunboat system told from the point of view of Gunnery Sergeant Capston. I had rehearsed the reading a bunch the night before, I wanted it to go really well. I knew there were three good laughs in the manuscript and the potential for a cringe. They happened, all where I had anticipated they might. Even better I know how I can do a better job next time.

The reading was an amazing learning experience and it also served as a great opportunity to get to know Jim Hines a little better. What a great guy to be friends with. I am really looking forward to Geek Fan Expo in September where we’ll both be special guests.

Speaking of readings, I caught John Scalzi and Jacqueline Carey combined reading. A memorable hour of my life, and one which I can now refer to in an effort to make future readings of my work all the better. Both of these excellent authors are also the very best public readers.

So, yes, watching these two masters read was very helpful and informative. I also got to spend some time face-to-face with them both as well as others. A memorable tid-bit that Scalzi left me with was something like, “The operating mode of writing is failure, so get used to it. Submit, and while you’re waiting write some more. Eventually, you’ll get sales.”

Finally, John’s wife Kristine was at the convention. Much like my wonderful Tess, Kristine is a capable, smart, and loving woman who teams up with her main man in the creative process. Perhaps the most important take away from our conversations was that I was reminded I really need to listen and pay attention to what Tess has to say about my work. Perhaps more importantly what she tells me about the way I conduct my business. She is my first, best fan in addition to my partner. Also, “never compromise when it comes to your work.” Kristine gave me this fundamental as a guideline and then we enjoyed a beer in between panels. If you’re reading this, I’ve heard you both. Loud and clear.

And with that, I must leave you. The plane is at the far end of the jetty and the scent of anticipation is running through the crowd. Yes, there will be more. Stay tuned, big announcements are blog bound.

Holy Cow! Goodreads Giveaway

So sometime in February I purchased a good reads ad. According to their daily emails ~22,000 of you have seen the add and only two of those clicked through to check my book out. Needless to say, I’ve been underwhelmed by Goodreads ads for months now. Daily I get an email telling me how many more of you passed over my book. It’s a slow motion death by microscopic cuts to the ego. One which I am paying for fifty cents at a time.

So it was that, about the same time I bought my plane tickets to DetCon1, I decided that I’d likely have a pile of books to give away soon after the convention. “Why not,” I said to myself, “try out one of these new fangled Goodreads giveaways.” I wasn’t expect much of anything. Worse when I tried to embed the widget for the giveaway on my wordpress site I wound up covered in computer puke, head to foot. Late that night I sort of gave up and went to bed. Then I forgot about it.

Today — after a brief but informative conversation with Steve Drew, Super Fan and Emperor of r/Fantasy — I went and checked the giveaway I had previously scheduled. Now my chin has a bruise on it because that was unquestionably a jaw dropping experience.

Overwhelming response, no advertising

Yes, you read that right 169 people entered to win one of 20 copies with absolutely no advertising. Want one?

Writers, Choose Your Side

Good morning world. I’m sipping coffee brewed in a melitta funnel and really enjoying that caffeinated buzz. And I need it too. Yesterday I ran to the top of Granite Mountain (West) in some very muggy, hot weather and then wrote a pile of words for COUNTERFEIT HORIZON. Oh yeah, and we got the washer-dryer stack replaced on the third floor of our townhouse. Good grief, I was productive.

During all of that doing I was patently unaware of the storm brewing in writer-land. It seems that authors all over the world were drawing lines in sand while I slept and now I’ve been asked to choose a side. Yes, we’re talking, once again, about the Hachette/Amazon battle that is still smoldering.

“What has changed?” you ask. A number of prominent, traditionally published authors have recently gone public. They are asking for reader condemnation of Amazon. Then, this morning, Hugh Howey published this petition asking for reader/writer support of Amazon.

Everyone is currently engaged in the truly enduring past time of second guessing one another via public media outlets such as Twitter. And I, I am left scratching my head in bewildered and somewhat misanthropic cloud of confusion. Some days, I can’t not hate you guys.

https://twitter.com/chuckwendig/status/484708195806744577

https://twitter.com/charlesacornell/status/484711319631712256

Where do I stand on this critical matter of the day? When I examine my soul, I find that I just don’t. Hachette and its army of apologists haven’t done anything that has made me like them any more. No book deals offered, not even misleading and unfruitful interest expressed. Amazon, despite being a key component of my “success” as a writer, isn’t making nice-nice with anyone either. The fact of the matter is that two really big corporations are acting worse than poorly raised and regulated toddlers at the play area. And making matters worse they’re both bandwagoning decisive and vocal support for their poorly articulated positions within a darkroom debate.

The best way to resolve any problem in the human world is for all sides to sit down and talk.
— Dalai Lama

People, here is a really fine example of the exact wrong moment to express your tightly held beliefs. Amazon and Hachette are using you and your incessant flame wars as an excuse to avoid solving their problem. And you fools are just playing into that dumb game. These corporations need to come to the table and fix their problems. Not you, traditionally published authors, and not you, independent published authors. Both of you are making resolution more difficult and the market much more hostile. This is not your fight, not your problem, and definitely not your job. Authors, your jobs are to write more and learn how to play well with others who write.

https://twitter.com/ryanjlawler/status/484704750693138432

(negative 10 points for derp, and minus 40 points to House Indignation for snarky bullshit)

Do I like and thank Amazon for providing me the opportunity to be published? Hell yes, but that has nothing to do with them manipulating the sales of books for others. Do I care overly much about Hachette teetering no the brink of insolvency? Not my worry either. I’d really appreciate it if both Amazon and Hachette could, henceforth, avoid forcing authors of any publishing imprint into the unenviable position of having to chose between divorcing parents.

Missing the Boat

Sometime on the 26th of June the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America board posted a call asking for opinions about changing their long standing policy regarding independent publishers.

The SFWA Board of Directors is asking members to share their opinions of self-publishing over the summer. The Board has asked the members to consider not just whether or not to make it possible for writers to join on the basis of self-published works but also the issues that would have to be addressed, such as confirming income, sales, and other publishing information from self-published writers. The issue should be submitted to the full membership prior to November’s business meeting at the 2014 World Fantasy Convention.

Members are invited to share their opinions with the Board through emails, via letters to the Forum, on the discussion boards, or at SFWA business meetings.

I’m not currently a member, and given that its been a while since I submitted any SFF to anyone that would constitute a “Qualified Venue” it’s unlikely I’ll ever tie up at that pier. But, as I have previously mentioned, I’d love to find some more company and, regardless of my publishing choices, this is my tribe. I love you SFF people, I truly do. And thus, I offer up some opinions on the topic more as an exercise allowing me an opportunity for self examination, than, in the highly unreasonable expectation, that this might sway the opinions of the SFWA board one way or another.

What Have You Got To Lose?

This is a question I think the SFWA board needs to ask itself. This question might actually constitute justification for one of those legal pad exercises where you draw a line down the middle and write down all the pros and cons. SFWA, as an organization, is a collective effort that has come together to “inform, support, promote, defend and advocate for its member writers.” Despite this, there remains a long standing conflict of interest within the organization.

Membership does not necessarily result in these benefits for its member writers. Rather, it acts as a funnel pushing authors into potentially unfavorable situations with publishers that will certainly take a huge chunk of any sales for works they accept. Is this what advocacy for member writers looks like?

I understand that traditional publishers constitute a significant and meaningful segment of the SFF publishing pie. I am not suggesting that they lose their hard won position within this market, nor am I promoting the idea that we simply do away with traditional publishers and replace them with zombie hoards of independents. In fact, I think publishers serve a meaningful and respectable portion of the market and they accomplish this capitalistic goal remarkably well considering their competition.

It is difficult to publish anything, having ready made teams of people intent on pushing at least some of the creative works that get generated within this space HELPS not only those who get picked up, but everyone who contributes to the market. But should these companies, which receive so many submissions their back logs collectively make the VA’s problems look like child’s play, function as the sole test of quality for the entire genre? The answer is undoubtably “no.” The market itself provides this conclusion. Anyone, who has the time and dedication can write something and get it to readers. Self publishing avenues exists because they meet market requirements.

This is utopian thinking, I realize. Why would publishers advocate for indie access in a space they already control? It’s extremely unlikely they ever would, I see SFWA taking comments more as a reaction to the reality of the market than anything else. Publishers have made it clear they don’t see the value in collective behavior and they don’t seem to understand or appreciate the challenges offered by competing medias. But SFWA should see that their policies do not serve their member writers. It locks anyone who desires membership and publication, at the same time, into accepting whatever is offered by whomever deigns to offer it. “What have you got to lose SFWA?” Plenty of ballast that should have been dumped long ago in my opinion.

Quality Assurance

Even the call for comment issued from SFWA board seems to worry overly much about the question of “how can we keep the rabble out?” SFWA has for a long time now been really worried about the remote possibility of endorsing the undeserved. If you read the comments popping up beneath the call for opinions as well as in blogs all over the internets you’ll find a regular theme, “maybe if they sell enough copies” or “how will we measure indie reach” or “maybe we can make a secondary (somewhat lower class) sort of membership for indies.”

These compromise suggestions, including SFWA’s request for discussion beside the caveat asking members to consider “not just whether or not to make it possible for writers to join on the basis of self-published works but also the issues that would have to be addressed, such as confirming income, sales, and other publishing information from self-published writers,” seem little more than Chicken Little trying to negotiate with the falling sky.  Here is why.

Primarily, no where in SFWA’s mission statement can we find the words “assure quality,” “guarantee public acceptance,” or “warranty sales quotas.” And, even given the current exclusionary policies in place, none of this happens as-is. Yeah, you read me right. Providing editorial review, artistic critique, copy-editing, cover art, and even blurb writing are not jobs SFWA has signed up to do. They tell members, in good standing and prospective alike, that this is not their job right there in their mission statement. Traditionally published authors and indies must both take this yoke on and ensure that these issues are resolved before publication, or suffer the consequences.

Yet, there are many people who seem to default to the idea that membership qualifies them for some exclusive privilege reserved for the few who surpass a nebulous threshold of quality. Not the case, because if I sell a story to the right people and no one reads it because my story stinks I’ve just disproven this hypothesis. And in this thought experiment, I’m still a SFWA member who could be rubbing elbows with Scalzi and GRRM at some bar at any given convention. And even that doesn’t mean anything since finding drinking buddies at conventions has less to do with what you’ve written or how it was published than who is sitting next to you and what is in your cup.

Notably, other organizations have previously rooted these hazy requirements for membership and the sky has not fallen on them. In fact, they’ve grown significantly as a result. Start with Romance Writers of America if you need an example. Want to know what is required to gain access to their benefits?

General Membership ($95): open to all persons seriously pursuing a romance fiction writing career. Only General members shall have all rights of membership, and only General members shall have the right to vote and the right to hold office in RWA.

That is correct. You writes your story, you pays your dues, you abide by those codes of conduct, and you gets your ticket to the party. “Why then,” you might find yourself asking yourself, “has the same sky RWA shares with SFWA not exploded into a trillion tiny, hot pieces and buried the RWA board under a pyroclastic flow of ashen readers and crap manuscripts?” And the answer is that the board of RWA seems to be in the possession of a couple of critical motes of understanding.

RWA does not pretend to be an arbiter of taste. Rather they stick to their mission statement like an warty, co-dependent, love-sick, fat kid who has, as chance would have it, met the vampire of her dreams. Their writers are what make them better, more writers only means a better organization. Especially when you completely comprehend where the value of the organization resides. The dreamy vampire isn’t valued by the love-sick kid because he’s beautiful, but because he appreciates and defends that diva with all his unearthly, post-death power and bottled rage.

And this relationship will continue to work, despite all the bitchy, bourgeois classmates that will poke at them and criticize them, because ultimately those arbiters of taste don’t have any. They base their value judgements on preconceived and often irrational frameworks such as units sold, agents retained, publishers brown nosed. None of these things have anything to do with the value of the story or the capabilities of the writer. They are distractions, shifting attention away from a job our sexy vampire isn’t supposed to do anyway. RWA gets this, they understand and love their army of undead beefcake.

Becoming Attractive Once More

Love is not attraction. When my youngest son, a three year old with a fiery soul, tosses an amazingly loud, snot encrusted fit because he doesn’t get his way, I still love him although he is not attractive. In that moment, he cannot, nay will not, offer me anything. All economic and political treaties that had been formerly established are null and void, our borders are closed, and we usually end up glaring at one another across a mined DMZ. But, as I look across that no man’s land, I can still see and appreciate him in all his complexity. I love him, even in these moments, but I don’t like him.

It seems to me that SFWA has a similar problem. The organization hasn’t gotten its way. It has convulsed, pitched some serious fits, and even whined in recent memory. And it has lost qualified and capable members as a result (see March 2014).

Yeah sure, it’s not bleeding membership. The whole organization isn’t on the verge of collapse, but much like my three year old, it is continuing to make the same mistakes over and over again. Go figure. He has been told this a million-million times, “Follow my simple rules and you’ll likely get what you want. Most importantly, do the things you say you’re going to do.”

SFWA’s call for comment seems to me a bit of a whinge. The board of an organization for writers couldn’t write a request without caveats and conditional statements? They’re asking us to tell them what to do? Really? Are they testing the water hoping their members will approve a plan of action they haven’t yet authored? “We’re thinking about make a change, but wanted to know what you guys thought first.” Good grief.

Being a member of a board comes with some responsibilities. One of those is providing leadership, in your role, for the organization. It seems obvious that SFWA board members suspect a need for change. Why haven’t they seized this opportunity then?

Ten minutes with a project plan template, a well informed team of interested and articulate contributors, and a white board should have solved the question of what to do about independent authors. SFWA could have come to its membership holding a bone with some meat on it. They could have outlined the challenge, articulated their logic, and provided a plan of action. What they’ve done isn’t likely to metamorphos into an ugly backlash beast, prickling with indignation. No, not even a little, because that’s what it already is.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. SFWA needs to act like a professional organization, and some of its members need to aspire towards professionalism. Wanting nothing more than to tell the world your story from a tender age does not make you a writer any more than selling a pile of books makes you a professional author. All professionals practice to a level of competence in their field. They don’t let outside concerns or petty squabbles get in the way of the expression of their competence. And that, right there, is attractive. Professionals win people for their side while getting shit done. Now go to your room and think about what I said.

Interesting Cola Flavor Alpha or Beta?

Readers, I want to assure you from the get-go that this post is about Jason Gurley‘s soon to be released book ELEANOR. I recently got to beta-read this specfic masterpiece and what can I say? Despite moving, toddler-rearing, driving from Colorado to Washington and then up and down the coast a couple of times, potty-training, job-searching, job-finding, running, house-searching and procurement, and a number of other life changing and arduous tasks at hand I still found the energy to crack this opus magnum every night until I had read it cover to cover. In fact, I suspect that Gurley may have embedded some sort of emotional power source between the lines because I haven’t the faintest how I managed. Other than I really wanted to finish it; it’s that good.

The book is extremely well done, and his prose, in standard Gurley fashion, sparkle with polish. I wouldn’t want to give too much away so I’ll leave you with only my highest praise and the advice you should put this on the top of your summer reading list. Also, go read the prologue.

1985. The death of Eleanor’s twin sister tears her family apart. Her father blames her mother for the accident. When Eleanor’s mother looks at her, she sees only the daughter she lost. Their wounded family crumbles under the weight of their shared grief.

1993. Eleanor is fourteen years old when it happens for the first time… when she walks through an ordinary door at school and finds herself in another world. It happens again and again, but it’s only a curiosity until that day at the cliffs. The day when Eleanor dives… and something rips her out of time itself.

And on the other side, someone is waiting for her.

But, now, I’d like to bifurcate this post. Mind you, it is still about ELEANOR, but in our recent travels I’ve noticed a brouhaha bubbling into media attention and subsequently throughout the writing community. That’s right Amazon v Hachette. Blogs have lit up with team chants. Everyone seems to be content to pick a band wagon and hop aboard for the ride. And much because I am an independent author for the time being, and most, if anything, I might make on my writing will inevitably come through this platform I’ve felt somewhat protective of their position.

But this afternoon, because I prefer to know more about these sorts of market altering situations than to blissfully write in a vacuum, I spent considerable time looking into the mess. Here’s what I think.

A. I’ve read a great deal of opinion, but parts of this one piece in Forbes ring true to me. Both Amazon and Hachette are at fault for manufacturing a situation that is, at best, fractious and seems to be entirely predicated on greed. Amazon has been manipulating their platform to twist Hachette’s nipples hoping they’ll back down from a bigger piece of pie. Hachette has been rousing the rabble in an attempt to shame Amazon into giving up the plate. Neither of these business entities seem to care a wit for the very many creatives that power their machines of business. We make the cherry filling for their pies, but they seem, at best, disinterested in what’s happening in the kitchen.

There is no theoretically correct answer to this question. A demand that publishers must make 75% on e-books cannot be supported: they take more risk with physical books and yet gain lower margins on them. So we cannot say that as a matter of divine right the current publisher margins on e-books are correct. But equally, we can’t say that Amazon deserves a greater piece of the action either. There’s simply nothing to support such an assertion: after all, even Amazon isn’t arguing that all people who sell e-books should get better margins if Amazon does.

B. And that is where this whole damn thing should fall apart. This is all about money, and not the kind of money that helps support artists of any sort. I noticed this comment from Jacqueline Carey, and she’s spot on in my opinion. Hachette its fans have tried to characterize their side of the conflict as some sort of David and Goliath, populist movement. But that’s not the case, Hachette is simply interested in a bigger piece of ebook sales, they’re not going to reimburse their creatives despite the damage this kerfuffle is currently causing (both short term, in lost sales via Amazon, and in the long view, damage to author platforms). And they’re not raising payouts or incentives to their authors. Not even offering a bigger cut of the pie should they “win” in this conflict.

 

So, here’s some advice to both of the big boys fighting in the school yard. Bad behavior is bad. You don’t make friends by fighting. This may be business, but on both sides, its extremely short sighted and malignant business. It’s only too bad King Solomon is a myth because I’d love to see what he’d do with the extra pie these big mothers are fighting over.

Where do I stand on this compelling issue of the day? Right where I always do. Go support your favorite artists. Make sure you buy their works. If you can, support their efforts by leaving reviews and kudos. Write them a letter telling them how much you appreciate what they’ve made. Do what you can to help them grow, mature, and flourish, because, the marketplace is full of parasites and power mongers.

Hint: This means you should go pre-order ELEANOR.