What in the name of Bezos is going on here?
September 10, 2014 9:21 PM Subscribe
Amazon's formula for literary success is, as far as I can deduce: Write as many books as you can, and then sell them cheaply and in bulk. Even though none of my books has sold more than 15,000-ish copies, Amazon continues to pay me to write them. The idea is that eventually one of my efforts will hit, and then the backlist will rise. I'm a writer, and my experience with this supposedly evil corporate behemoth has been fantastic.
I'm "friends" with Neal Pollack on Facebook. His updates are very amusing, and if you are a writer (or are considering publishing a book) Pollack provides a wealth of information about how to be successful in this day and age. I quite like the guy.
posted by Nevin at 9:39 PM on September 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Nevin at 9:39 PM on September 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
If I understand this, Amazon treats all their employees badly, supposedly even their their software developers, but authors are treated so badly by traditional publishers that Amazon authors feel like they're doing pretty well, right?
posted by jeffburdges at 10:08 PM on September 10, 2014 [21 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 10:08 PM on September 10, 2014 [21 favorites]
"Well I'm doing okay, so I don't see what everybody's so upset about," reports man who is self-admittedly surrounded by people explaining what they're upset about.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:12 PM on September 10, 2014 [38 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:12 PM on September 10, 2014 [38 favorites]
I'm glad it's working out for him, but this reads a lot like a farm animal raving about all this great feed we're getting from our friend the farmer - there's got to be a slaughterhouse involved somewhere.
posted by Dr Dracator at 12:03 AM on September 11, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by Dr Dracator at 12:03 AM on September 11, 2014 [14 favorites]
there's got to be a slaughterhouse involved somewhere.
...I should have quit you.....a long time ago
posted by thelonius at 3:27 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
...I should have quit you.....a long time ago
posted by thelonius at 3:27 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
"Instead, through Amazon, I’ve published three full-length novels - a historical action comedy set in the very specific world of 1930s Jewish basketball and two detective stories set in the L.A. yoga scene."
posted by gene_machine at 4:11 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by gene_machine at 4:11 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
I've personally found Amazon publishing puts out consistently quality books in their genres (I include "literary" as a genre, and Deborah Reed, mentioned in the article, is a fantastic writer by any measure). The books are well priced, and always interesting, at least the ones I've bought.
I especially like how they've reissued a tonne of great books through Nancy Pearl's Book Lust discoveries series; those have all been most enjoyable.
posted by smoke at 4:17 AM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I especially like how they've reissued a tonne of great books through Nancy Pearl's Book Lust discoveries series; those have all been most enjoyable.
posted by smoke at 4:17 AM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
The "Infinite number of monkeys" theory in action?
posted by Thorzdad at 4:32 AM on September 11, 2014
posted by Thorzdad at 4:32 AM on September 11, 2014
The "Infinite number of monkeys" theory in action?
On the buying end.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:34 AM on September 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
On the buying end.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:34 AM on September 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
"As many as you can, cheaply and in bulk" doesn't sound much like my experience of writing, nor like anyone whose writing I'd want to read.
posted by Scattercat at 4:47 AM on September 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Scattercat at 4:47 AM on September 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
I'm surprised that Amazon would offer a five-figure advance, however low those five figures may be. That's more than I made as an adjunct each semester by a decent margin, and I would think that a serious writer could turn out at least a couple of books a year. To be absolutely clear: it's still an embarassingly low rate, but it's better than I was expecting.
I do feel the article really missed the point with the "books are not widgets" complaint. Briefly, Amazon's position in the Hackett dispute, among others, has been that books are fancy widgets: if we aren't making book X available, but book Y is kind of like book X, you should be reasonably happy to buy book Y instead. As the author quotes his friend, another writer, this line of thinking misunderstands the book reader's perspective "to an almost comical extent."
The author's response is that book pricing is not equivalent to book value, which is a complete non sequitor. The problem with Amazon's line of thinking is that book value is not a matter of similarities. I don't buy a funny book because I want to laugh, and any book is as good as any other; I buy Terry Pratchett because I enjoy his sense of humor. There's no substitute for that; if I can't get Pratchett, then I'm not going to try to buy a book with that sort of humor, and I'm definitely not going to buy a Pratchett-knockoff. Knockoff commodities work because we understand manufacturing, but knockoff books fail because books are about the soul of the story.
posted by philosophygeek at 5:21 AM on September 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
I do feel the article really missed the point with the "books are not widgets" complaint. Briefly, Amazon's position in the Hackett dispute, among others, has been that books are fancy widgets: if we aren't making book X available, but book Y is kind of like book X, you should be reasonably happy to buy book Y instead. As the author quotes his friend, another writer, this line of thinking misunderstands the book reader's perspective "to an almost comical extent."
The author's response is that book pricing is not equivalent to book value, which is a complete non sequitor. The problem with Amazon's line of thinking is that book value is not a matter of similarities. I don't buy a funny book because I want to laugh, and any book is as good as any other; I buy Terry Pratchett because I enjoy his sense of humor. There's no substitute for that; if I can't get Pratchett, then I'm not going to try to buy a book with that sort of humor, and I'm definitely not going to buy a Pratchett-knockoff. Knockoff commodities work because we understand manufacturing, but knockoff books fail because books are about the soul of the story.
posted by philosophygeek at 5:21 AM on September 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
"As many as you can, cheaply and in bulk"
Well, it worked for Tom Clancy, I suppose.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:21 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Well, it worked for Tom Clancy, I suppose.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:21 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
So that's what happened to Neal Pollack. I'll be damned.
posted by valkane at 5:22 AM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by valkane at 5:22 AM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
"Supposedly evil," as though their utterly indefensible labor practices don't matter simply because someone is benefiting from the company. Noting that benefit seems like an awfully strange way to counter those charges.
This seems like a bit of a derail, since presumably most authors aren't complaining about the labor practices but about the ebook pricing.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:31 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
This seems like a bit of a derail, since presumably most authors aren't complaining about the labor practices but about the ebook pricing.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:31 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
"As many as you can, cheaply and in bulk" doesn't sound much like my experience of writing, nor like anyone whose writing I'd want to read.
Your snooty attitude is depriving you of some good books, then, and it also displays a real romanticising of the non Amazon publishing industry which is largely unjustified, much as they like to have it bruited about.
FYI "as many as they can" pans out at about one book, per imprint, per month - an entirely unremarkable number for a small publisher.
I wouldn't let one short article decide your opinion on about a hundred books, before you've even read one, though to be fair we all do judge books by their covers to some degree.
posted by smoke at 5:32 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Your snooty attitude is depriving you of some good books, then, and it also displays a real romanticising of the non Amazon publishing industry which is largely unjustified, much as they like to have it bruited about.
FYI "as many as they can" pans out at about one book, per imprint, per month - an entirely unremarkable number for a small publisher.
I wouldn't let one short article decide your opinion on about a hundred books, before you've even read one, though to be fair we all do judge books by their covers to some degree.
posted by smoke at 5:32 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
More broadly I encourage anyone to have a look at what Amazon Publishing is actually putting out before chucking off in the thread about what you think it is. The output and quality is indistinguishable from any mainstream publisher or imprint, for better and for worse.
posted by smoke at 5:35 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by smoke at 5:35 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
"So that's what happened to Neal Pollack. I'll be damned."
Wait, it is actually that Neal Pollack? I genuinely thought they just had the same name. This feels disconcerting. This is not quite what I expected his second (third?) act to be.
Just found this article: Neal Pollack on rebounding from massive hype and six-figure deals to online publishing. Time to give it a read.
posted by Hartster at 5:37 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Wait, it is actually that Neal Pollack? I genuinely thought they just had the same name. This feels disconcerting. This is not quite what I expected his second (third?) act to be.
Just found this article: Neal Pollack on rebounding from massive hype and six-figure deals to online publishing. Time to give it a read.
posted by Hartster at 5:37 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
This seems like a bit of a derail, since presumably most authors aren't complaining about the labor practices but about the ebook pricing.
He himself notes that Amazon has been accused of being evil, though. In an apparent response to those assertions, he then describes how he has personally benefited from the company, which misses the point pretty hard. I don't think it's a derail to point out that his framing is incoherent, though obviously there are other aspects of the situation worth talking about too.
posted by clockzero at 5:47 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
He himself notes that Amazon has been accused of being evil, though. In an apparent response to those assertions, he then describes how he has personally benefited from the company, which misses the point pretty hard. I don't think it's a derail to point out that his framing is incoherent, though obviously there are other aspects of the situation worth talking about too.
posted by clockzero at 5:47 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
He himself notes that Amazon has been accused of being evil, though.
Yeah, but he's referring to a particular evil that is unrelated to the labor controversy. Hence bringing that up is somewhat derailish and axe-grindy, and not responding in good faith to the actual issues raised in TFA.
posted by paleyellowwithorange at 5:56 AM on September 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Yeah, but he's referring to a particular evil that is unrelated to the labor controversy. Hence bringing that up is somewhat derailish and axe-grindy, and not responding in good faith to the actual issues raised in TFA.
posted by paleyellowwithorange at 5:56 AM on September 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Is it a derail? The shitty cutting-costs-through-horrible-labor-practices side of the business is what makes his good experiences possible. Its not the particular brand of evil that Pollack talks about, its yet another brand of evil associated with the same company and that the company benefits from. Unless the argument can be made that the digital sales infrastructure and customer base could have come into existence without the years of shitting on labor?
posted by Slackermagee at 6:22 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 6:22 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
The article's interesting for its description of an Amazon author's experience. But it misses the real points about Amazon/Hachette. The concerns about Amazon are not about what Amazon is now: one operator in competition with other publishers who can set their own prices. The concerns are firstly about what Amazon will become if it has the power to force other publishers to adopt particular prices, and secondly what will happen if it controls most of the eBook market in a world where most books are eBooks.
Talking about what Amazon is like right now now doesn't address those concerns.
There are a number of different concerns. Different people are worried about different things. Others see them as good things, not bad. For instance.
1. When Amazon has a near-monopoly on eBooks, it will use this power to raise prices, harming consumers.
2. When most books are delivered by one company, it will be easy for governments or other actors to censor, monitor and control what books are available.
3. Price competition will reduce payments to authors, leaving authors worse off.
One thing that I think gets missed by people arguing "free markets: yay" or "free markets: boo" is that even if Amazon is sincere about creating an efficient free market, that might still lower the quality of books that are available, even while benefiting the majority of book consumers.
Consider, for instance the airline market before deregulation. A cosy cartel had a tacit agreement not to lower prices. With an effective floor on prices, instead the cartel members competed on quality. Flying was a much more luxurious experience than today, but also much more expensive than today. The ill-effect of the cartel was that consumers were forced to buy expensive high-quality product, or do without.
Let's suppose that Amazon does what it says: disrupts a cosy cartel and introducing the benefits of competition. Prices of books will fall. Payments to authors will also fall. The number of different books available will rise. This will attract some new authors into the enlarged market: in particular hobbyists who can now get paid something for their hobby. It will also force some current professional authors out of the market as they can no longer make a living. Overall, consumers will benefit from the lower prices. But it's still possible that the quality of books will fall, just as airline comfort fell after deregulation. Instead of competing on quality, the competition will now more based on price: who can produce words the most cheaply, not who can produce the best words.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:36 AM on September 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
Talking about what Amazon is like right now now doesn't address those concerns.
There are a number of different concerns. Different people are worried about different things. Others see them as good things, not bad. For instance.
1. When Amazon has a near-monopoly on eBooks, it will use this power to raise prices, harming consumers.
2. When most books are delivered by one company, it will be easy for governments or other actors to censor, monitor and control what books are available.
3. Price competition will reduce payments to authors, leaving authors worse off.
One thing that I think gets missed by people arguing "free markets: yay" or "free markets: boo" is that even if Amazon is sincere about creating an efficient free market, that might still lower the quality of books that are available, even while benefiting the majority of book consumers.
Consider, for instance the airline market before deregulation. A cosy cartel had a tacit agreement not to lower prices. With an effective floor on prices, instead the cartel members competed on quality. Flying was a much more luxurious experience than today, but also much more expensive than today. The ill-effect of the cartel was that consumers were forced to buy expensive high-quality product, or do without.
Let's suppose that Amazon does what it says: disrupts a cosy cartel and introducing the benefits of competition. Prices of books will fall. Payments to authors will also fall. The number of different books available will rise. This will attract some new authors into the enlarged market: in particular hobbyists who can now get paid something for their hobby. It will also force some current professional authors out of the market as they can no longer make a living. Overall, consumers will benefit from the lower prices. But it's still possible that the quality of books will fall, just as airline comfort fell after deregulation. Instead of competing on quality, the competition will now more based on price: who can produce words the most cheaply, not who can produce the best words.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:36 AM on September 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
"I’ve published three full-length novels—a historical action comedy set in the very specific world of 1930s Jewish basketball and two detective stories set in the L.A. yoga scene, originally written in serialized form—as well as three 10,000-word novellas, including an extended piece of Kurt Vonnegut “fan fiction,” all in the last 30 months. I have another novel, a time-travel romantic comedy, coming out next March and I’m under contract to write still another novel, subject yet to be determined."I mean none of that really has me yearning to rush out and buy them but as a practice it isn't that different from the way the paperback industry of the mid-20th century operated. "As many as you can, cheaply and in bulk" was the motto of pretty much every writer but a very few in the days before blockbuster advances, certainly it was a rule for many (all?) of the classic science fiction/mystery/genre writers.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:41 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Just found this article: Neal Pollack on rebounding from massive hype and six-figure deals to online publishing.
So yeah, it is him. I remember reading him years ago and thinking "What hubris this guys got" and it sounds like it kinda bit him in the ass, but he came out the other side. Which is cool.
Anyway, great article find, Hartser. Thanks.
posted by valkane at 6:49 AM on September 11, 2014
So yeah, it is him. I remember reading him years ago and thinking "What hubris this guys got" and it sounds like it kinda bit him in the ass, but he came out the other side. Which is cool.
Anyway, great article find, Hartser. Thanks.
posted by valkane at 6:49 AM on September 11, 2014
Wait until he discovers online automatic plot generators and web-based Markov chain outputs.
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:50 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:50 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Absolutely. In fact, I'll wager the whole “fan fiction” genre gets taken over by algorithms that build novels to spec. In essence, you need a user friendly website that scrapes existing bodies of work and provides users with good tools to guide the plot. It'd share users' creations to encourage collaboration, tweaking, help, etc. so ebooks versions might as well be free while buying a printed copy costs something. Voila, anyone can be an author!
posted by jeffburdges at 7:28 AM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 7:28 AM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Subject of any article: "I am supporting myself comfortably by doing X."
Metafilter: "You are a bad person, because the system is flawed! Only bad people are free of crippling debt and poverty!"
I hope none of you are posting from computers which were made with chips produced under less-than-sterling employment conditions, wearing any clothing which might have come from sweatshops, drive a car, buy non-local fruit at a chain grocery store, etc.
Amazon is a flawed organization. That does not imply every human who deals with it is equally tainted.
It feels like we're blaming the rope-making company and the guy who eats fruit from the tree for the lynching. That's certainly easier than going after the mob...
posted by IAmBroom at 7:49 AM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: "You are a bad person, because the system is flawed! Only bad people are free of crippling debt and poverty!"
I hope none of you are posting from computers which were made with chips produced under less-than-sterling employment conditions, wearing any clothing which might have come from sweatshops, drive a car, buy non-local fruit at a chain grocery store, etc.
Amazon is a flawed organization. That does not imply every human who deals with it is equally tainted.
It feels like we're blaming the rope-making company and the guy who eats fruit from the tree for the lynching. That's certainly easier than going after the mob...
posted by IAmBroom at 7:49 AM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yeah, but he's referring to a particular evil that is unrelated to the labor controversy. Hence bringing that up is somewhat derailish and axe-grindy, and not responding in good faith to the actual issues raised in TFA.
I want to simply reply to this and then drop the matter, precisely because I don't want to derail. I was talking about the subject of the post, and while I'm not entirely sure precisely what's being suggested when you say that it wasn't "in good faith," it's a totally gratuitous and rather unkind sentiment. It's not at all axe-grinding to mention (once!) something that's clearly related to the topic at hand.
posted by clockzero at 8:00 AM on September 11, 2014
I want to simply reply to this and then drop the matter, precisely because I don't want to derail. I was talking about the subject of the post, and while I'm not entirely sure precisely what's being suggested when you say that it wasn't "in good faith," it's a totally gratuitous and rather unkind sentiment. It's not at all axe-grinding to mention (once!) something that's clearly related to the topic at hand.
posted by clockzero at 8:00 AM on September 11, 2014
Subject of any article: "I am supporting myself comfortably by doing X."
Metafilter: "You are a bad person, because the system is flawed! Only bad people are free of crippling debt and poverty!"
I think that's a reduction to absurdity-style misrepresentation of what's being said. Nobody has complained that, say, capitalism itself is bad and therefore Neal Pollack is also bad for not being poverty-stricken.
posted by clockzero at 8:07 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Metafilter: "You are a bad person, because the system is flawed! Only bad people are free of crippling debt and poverty!"
I think that's a reduction to absurdity-style misrepresentation of what's being said. Nobody has complained that, say, capitalism itself is bad and therefore Neal Pollack is also bad for not being poverty-stricken.
posted by clockzero at 8:07 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
He seems to be glossing over the details of his contracts. Five figures certainly sounds like a lot, but it's not necessarily so. Sometimes five figures is nothing especially if they're not spending anything on marketing.
If a book takes two years to write and the author only gets $20,000 for their work, that's hard to live on. Maybe if the book was thrown together in a couple months, had no fact-checking and only cursory editing, then maybe $20k is worth it, but what sort of publishing industry is this?
Amazon is going full tilt with the 50 Shades of Grey approach to publishing. Cheap and in bulk bought accidentally at midnight from a kindle based on the cover. Barely read and just tossed aside, similar to the pulps of the 30s.
As much as I love the old pulp covers, few of the books would stand the test of time. They only served to dilute the market for authorship. There's less money for the authors who might actually spend the time to write stories of any depth. The publishing industry then can't help cultivate authors, they just choose them for their marketing potential and audience.
posted by destro at 8:44 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
If a book takes two years to write and the author only gets $20,000 for their work, that's hard to live on. Maybe if the book was thrown together in a couple months, had no fact-checking and only cursory editing, then maybe $20k is worth it, but what sort of publishing industry is this?
Amazon is going full tilt with the 50 Shades of Grey approach to publishing. Cheap and in bulk bought accidentally at midnight from a kindle based on the cover. Barely read and just tossed aside, similar to the pulps of the 30s.
As much as I love the old pulp covers, few of the books would stand the test of time. They only served to dilute the market for authorship. There's less money for the authors who might actually spend the time to write stories of any depth. The publishing industry then can't help cultivate authors, they just choose them for their marketing potential and audience.
posted by destro at 8:44 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I know someone who reads avidly and very quickly, who likes period romance novels, mysteries and really all sorts of things. For her, having lots of cheap books would be great, even knock-offs of Georgette Heyer or whatever. To me, that's just more stuff that I don't have time to read when I haven't even read most of the greatest books ever written.
I would assume that overall sales volume skews more towards beach reads than classics. I would also guess that, over time, the selection of cheap reads on Amazon will become at least as good as the shelf of random paperbacks in the hotel lobby/beach house living room. (Or an airport newsstand for that matter.)
As far as this article, to me it basically crosses a line. On the one hand, you have a guy explaining how he can actually make real (though modest) money doing something he loves: more power to you, guy. On the other hand, it almost never makes sense for a person to defend the behavior of a corporation, it doesn't make sense here, and he doesn't do a good job of that. A big, evil company doesn't change just because you make out well in your relationship with it. Sometimes you just gotta embrace your inner pragmatist.
posted by snofoam at 8:46 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
I would assume that overall sales volume skews more towards beach reads than classics. I would also guess that, over time, the selection of cheap reads on Amazon will become at least as good as the shelf of random paperbacks in the hotel lobby/beach house living room. (Or an airport newsstand for that matter.)
As far as this article, to me it basically crosses a line. On the one hand, you have a guy explaining how he can actually make real (though modest) money doing something he loves: more power to you, guy. On the other hand, it almost never makes sense for a person to defend the behavior of a corporation, it doesn't make sense here, and he doesn't do a good job of that. A big, evil company doesn't change just because you make out well in your relationship with it. Sometimes you just gotta embrace your inner pragmatist.
posted by snofoam at 8:46 AM on September 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
From Wikipedia:
posted by stbalbach at 8:53 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
In a 2014 article in The New Yorker, George Packer writes that nearly all of Amazon Publishing's books have under-performed.[27] For example it purchased two high profile books at auction including Timothy Ferriss' The 4-Hour Chef for 1 million dollars, which did worse than his previous titles; and My Mother Was Nuts, a memoir by Penny Marshall, for eight-hundred thousand dollars, which only sold seventeen thousand copies. Actors Anonymous, a novel by James Franco, has sold fewer than five thousand copies. Packer says "In the past year [2012-2013], Amazon Publishing has barely been a presence at auctions, and several editors have departed; last month [January 2014], Kirshbaum left the company, having failed at the task Amazon gave him." Reasons given for the poor performance include bookstores which refuse to carry Amazon titles since Amazon is a direct competitor. Incompetence as a publisher, as one New York publisher said about Amazon, "There are certain things it takes to be a publisher. You have to have luck, but you also have to have judgment, discernment."[27] And Amazon's culture of machines, algorithms and mass products which don't fit well with the publishing world's emphasis on human networking and reputation.[27]"Amazon's culture of machines, algorithms and mass products which don't fit well with the publishing world's emphasis on human networking and reputation". Well, maybe Amazon found a way - throw it up against the wall and let the readers sort it out, crap and all. No thanks I have better things to do then read through crap for the good stuff. Though I imagine there are people who don't mind playing amateur publisher, sorting out what others should read and leaving 5 or 1 star reviews to that effect. Like that Frozen Food reviewer's 'come to Jesus moment', one day you realize it's just not worth it and you wish the industry would police itself and at least try to publish the good stuff, what a publisher aims to do, not publish everything in its slush pile, "pray and spray" style.
posted by stbalbach at 8:53 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
If a book takes two years to write and the author only gets $20,000 for their work, that's hard to live on. Maybe if the book was thrown together in a couple months, had no fact-checking and only cursory editing, then maybe $20k is worth it, but what sort of publishing industry is this?
In the article, and I think even quoted in this thread, it says 3 novels and 3 novellas in 30 months.
posted by snofoam at 8:57 AM on September 11, 2014
In the article, and I think even quoted in this thread, it says 3 novels and 3 novellas in 30 months.
posted by snofoam at 8:57 AM on September 11, 2014
Well, maybe Amazon found a way - throw it up against the wall and let the readers sort it out, crap and all.
"Amazon, where we outsource the slush pile to you!"
posted by octobersurprise at 8:59 AM on September 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
"Amazon, where we outsource the slush pile to you!"
posted by octobersurprise at 8:59 AM on September 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
What we need is Amazon to produce low quality porn sites which also run fiction, so we can produce the next e-Vonnegut
posted by benzenedream at 9:12 AM on September 11, 2014
posted by benzenedream at 9:12 AM on September 11, 2014
Being able to reach hundreds of thousands of readers through Amazon's database has allowed me to build a career and support myself, which is highly unusual for a writer,” she wrote in an email. “Rather than my books falling into obscurity after the initial launch, Amazon has the capability to keep the interest going by highlighting a book years after it was published.”
This is Pollack quoting another writer who's done well with Amazon. I'm with snofoam in thinking that having Pollack gain success by churning his stuff out is not particularly helpful to me as a reader-- or of interest to anyone, unless they want to do the same thing. But I think there is some genuinely good news for readers in the e-book boom. Nothing has to go out of print. There are a lot of really good novels that came out in the 70s and 80s that are mostly forgotten. Publishers periodically resurrect a few, but it's a very expensive thing to do in print. If those books are in e-format, there's much less work and expense. As a reader, I welcome the idea a book doesn't have to be a stupendous financial success to remain available.
I do think it's sad that, so far, low-risk e-publishing and Amazon seem to be synonymous for most people. Even for authors on the level of Pollack, supposedly the big beneficiaries according to his article, the arrangement with Amazon can really go sour. I hang out with a lot of mystery writers who embraced Amazon and then experienced the downsides. Some of which, admittedly, the writers were naive not to have foreseen. Pollack is very much aware of the bargain that he's made.
posted by BibiRose at 9:16 AM on September 11, 2014
This is Pollack quoting another writer who's done well with Amazon. I'm with snofoam in thinking that having Pollack gain success by churning his stuff out is not particularly helpful to me as a reader-- or of interest to anyone, unless they want to do the same thing. But I think there is some genuinely good news for readers in the e-book boom. Nothing has to go out of print. There are a lot of really good novels that came out in the 70s and 80s that are mostly forgotten. Publishers periodically resurrect a few, but it's a very expensive thing to do in print. If those books are in e-format, there's much less work and expense. As a reader, I welcome the idea a book doesn't have to be a stupendous financial success to remain available.
I do think it's sad that, so far, low-risk e-publishing and Amazon seem to be synonymous for most people. Even for authors on the level of Pollack, supposedly the big beneficiaries according to his article, the arrangement with Amazon can really go sour. I hang out with a lot of mystery writers who embraced Amazon and then experienced the downsides. Some of which, admittedly, the writers were naive not to have foreseen. Pollack is very much aware of the bargain that he's made.
posted by BibiRose at 9:16 AM on September 11, 2014
I got stopped just by the picture at the top of the article. I expected an automated robot system where the books are untouched by human hands, not a human walking with a real cart. I now read that items are not stored in categories, just randomly put in free space. Looks like a good place to lose the lost ark.
posted by MtDewd at 9:17 AM on September 11, 2014
posted by MtDewd at 9:17 AM on September 11, 2014
At Amazon warehouses, humans are treated as robots until robots are cheaper.
posted by zippy at 9:25 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by zippy at 9:25 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
In essence, you need a user friendly website that scrapes existing bodies of work and provides users with good tools to guide the plot.
e.g. The Lester Dent Pulp Paper Master Fiction Plot and Michael Moorcock's advice on writing a book in three days.
It'd share users' creations to encourage collaboration, tweaking, help, etc. so ebooks versions might as well be free while buying a printed copy costs something. Voila, anyone can be an author!
While the 'net has definitely created a social environment for a new kind of oral tradition in storytelling, Amazon is dreaming of monetizing archiveofourown and creepypasta.
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:29 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
e.g. The Lester Dent Pulp Paper Master Fiction Plot and Michael Moorcock's advice on writing a book in three days.
It'd share users' creations to encourage collaboration, tweaking, help, etc. so ebooks versions might as well be free while buying a printed copy costs something. Voila, anyone can be an author!
While the 'net has definitely created a social environment for a new kind of oral tradition in storytelling, Amazon is dreaming of monetizing archiveofourown and creepypasta.
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:29 AM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
"As many as you can, cheaply and in bulk" doesn't sound much like my experience of writing, nor like anyone whose writing I'd want to read.
This is a bit of a taste argument, isn't it? As a music nerd, I have heard for decades the sour refrain of condescension leveled against people for liking what they like. Even when the subject is something I don't like and would rather didn't exist, it's none of my business what other people do with it.
posted by rhizome at 11:19 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is a bit of a taste argument, isn't it? As a music nerd, I have heard for decades the sour refrain of condescension leveled against people for liking what they like. Even when the subject is something I don't like and would rather didn't exist, it's none of my business what other people do with it.
posted by rhizome at 11:19 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I am coining a new term for IamBroom's derail attempt up there.. "rail deluge" where so many rails are thrown out onto the thread, it sounds like a metal lincoln logs set being thrown into a bowl.
posted by jscott at 11:53 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by jscott at 11:53 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Meh, the whole threads been derailed by a bunch of people talking about Amazon in general, books they've never read and a publisher they have never interacted with. I wad hoping people could talk about the subject of the Amazon publishing, maybe share a few titles focus on differences between the imprints, etc. It seems feelings about Amazon run too high for that.
posted by smoke at 1:34 PM on September 11, 2014
posted by smoke at 1:34 PM on September 11, 2014
I dunno, seems to me that talking about whether Amazon is evil is totally germane when responding to an author who's trying to make the case that they're doing some things that aren't evil, so maybe they're not as evil as we thought.
More than enough real estate here to talk about other things if you want to -- be the change you seek, etc.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:45 PM on September 11, 2014
More than enough real estate here to talk about other things if you want to -- be the change you seek, etc.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:45 PM on September 11, 2014
Meh, the whole threads been derailed by a bunch of people talking about Amazon in general, books they've never read and a publisher they have never interacted with. I wad hoping people could talk about the subject of the Amazon publishing, maybe share a few titles focus on differences between the imprints, etc. It seems feelings about Amazon run too high for that.
Smoke, people ARE talking about the subject of Amazon publishing and what it's going to do to the industry as a whole. Please see TheophileEscargot's post above for some excellent points about the subject of Amazon publishing and stalbach's about the dubious success of Amazon's publishing as a whole. People have a hard time sharing titles, because a) the linked article was not about "some cool books amazon is publishing!!" but about "I really like Amazon because they're paying me even though it's unquestionably bad for books and writing as a whole!" and b) because lots of us are scared about what this is going to do to a hobby (reading!) we love.
As for the article: "Meanwhile, Bookpeople, the excellent independent bookstore in my hometown that had been so important to starting my own writing career, refuses to carry my Amazon-published books."
HOLY SHIT DUDE. Does this asshole seriously expect that his independent bookstore, desperately scrambling to keep customers in this post-Amazon age, will reward Amazon with legitimacy while Amazon gleefully puts it out of business? Christ, what an asshole. The fact that he would even ASK is astounding.
posted by AmandaA at 1:52 PM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Smoke, people ARE talking about the subject of Amazon publishing and what it's going to do to the industry as a whole. Please see TheophileEscargot's post above for some excellent points about the subject of Amazon publishing and stalbach's about the dubious success of Amazon's publishing as a whole. People have a hard time sharing titles, because a) the linked article was not about "some cool books amazon is publishing!!" but about "I really like Amazon because they're paying me even though it's unquestionably bad for books and writing as a whole!" and b) because lots of us are scared about what this is going to do to a hobby (reading!) we love.
As for the article: "Meanwhile, Bookpeople, the excellent independent bookstore in my hometown that had been so important to starting my own writing career, refuses to carry my Amazon-published books."
HOLY SHIT DUDE. Does this asshole seriously expect that his independent bookstore, desperately scrambling to keep customers in this post-Amazon age, will reward Amazon with legitimacy while Amazon gleefully puts it out of business? Christ, what an asshole. The fact that he would even ASK is astounding.
posted by AmandaA at 1:52 PM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Yeah those were interesting comments, I wasnt really addressing those.
posted by smoke at 2:34 PM on September 11, 2014
posted by smoke at 2:34 PM on September 11, 2014
I do think we could be a little more clear about Amazon vs Amazon Publishing, which isn't going to do anything to the industry and is a minor player at best. It does give authors much higher royalties than publishing industry in general, but I don't see any major publishers following that particular lead....
posted by smoke at 2:36 PM on September 11, 2014
posted by smoke at 2:36 PM on September 11, 2014
Sorry for the triple comment, but to address the authors point, I feel like he's saying that Amazon Publishing is not so different from competitor publishers, and what differences there are - for a writer - seem mostly positive ones to him.
posted by smoke at 2:39 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by smoke at 2:39 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
At the bookstore where I used to work, we once had Neal Pollack in for a book signing. In one area of the store, we had a wall entirely decorated with autographed, poster-sized blow-ups of book covers from past guest authors. At some point, Mr. Pollack committed the "hilarious" prank of defacing the signed poster for TV journalist Cokie Roberts's book by scribbling his name in permanent marker across the upper lip of her photo, an effect that resembled a Hitler mustache. And because it was written in permanent ink, of course the poster had to be taken down and trashed.
Real class act, that Neal Pollack.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:35 PM on September 11, 2014
Real class act, that Neal Pollack.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:35 PM on September 11, 2014
Prices of books will fall. Payments to authors will also fall.
Is this true?
posted by juiceCake at 6:53 PM on September 11, 2014
Is this true?
posted by juiceCake at 6:53 PM on September 11, 2014
An ebook has zero marginal cost so the market is inefficient unless ebook prices decline to zero, juiceCake. We've traditionally addressed this issue by paying a small number of academics to do work that shouldn't be valued above it's marginal cost. We'll eventually need to pay authors directly like we did with academics, maybe through a basic income, maybe through an artists stipend, whatever.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:36 PM on September 11, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 9:36 PM on September 11, 2014
Are you putting forward the position that all prices naturally decline to the marginal cost? Because Coke and Pepsi (as well as basically everything else in existence ever) would like to have a word with you.
posted by Justinian at 9:41 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:41 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
clockzero: Subject of any article: "I am supporting myself comfortably by doing X."Not at all. People in this thread have criticized Neal Pollack for making money from Amazon, because "it's evil".
Metafilter: "You are a bad person, because the system is flawed! Only bad people are free of crippling debt and poverty!"
I think that's a reduction to absurdity-style misrepresentation of what's being said. Nobody has complained that, say, capitalism itself is bad and therefore Neal Pollack is also bad for not being poverty-stricken.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:53 AM on September 12, 2014
An ebook has zero marginal cost so the market is inefficient unless ebook prices decline to zero, juiceCake.
Is this true?
posted by juiceCake at 11:27 AM on October 7, 2014
Is this true?
posted by juiceCake at 11:27 AM on October 7, 2014
Indeed. There are costs. The author wants to make money off what they have put in in terms of time, though of course their return is not a fixed amount. The people who create the ePub or Mobi files need to be paid. The distribution costs (server, merchant charges, maintenance) are another factor, as is the ongoing programming of the sales engine so I'm entirely baffled by the idea that there is zero marginal cost, but perhaps I don't know what "marginal" refers to. It becomes, as usual, a matter of finding the right balance between how much to charge and your target volume and ensuring everyone gets paid.
Rumour has it under the old paper model, with some exceptions, not to many authors got paid.
posted by juiceCake at 12:10 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Rumour has it under the old paper model, with some exceptions, not to many authors got paid.
posted by juiceCake at 12:10 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
An ebook has zero marginal cost in the sense that readers can share the ebook for amongst themselves paying nothing for reproduction beyond their internet connection.* An author's costs would never be considered "marginal costs" regardless because they do not vary with reproduction, making them fixed costs instead. This is not contentious.
There is a contentious part of course : In finance, the efficient market hypothesis effectively says that ethics were violated anytime anyone can consistently make money off the markets. Anti-capitalists argue similarly in economics that only unethical mechanisms allow ongoing profits from reproduction once capital is no longer employed in reproduction. And the information itself cannot be considered capital.
It's exactly why "many authors [did not get] paid .. under the old paper model" too : It's inefficient, even unethical, to involve unnecessary resources in reproduction, so authors were excluded, lost any negotiating power, and their share shrank to almost nothing. Ya know, copyright was created for the purpose censorship, maybe authors would've remained better payed if they'd outlawed books not signed by the original author.
Academia never tried paying researchers for their publications, instead they found other work like teaching and made publication a condition of employment. It worked considerably better until academia also made oversupplying researchers profitable.
* In practice, there are folks voluntarily paying for the seed boxes that distribute the massive torrents containing millions of ebooks, but that's still rounding error.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:25 PM on October 8, 2014
There is a contentious part of course : In finance, the efficient market hypothesis effectively says that ethics were violated anytime anyone can consistently make money off the markets. Anti-capitalists argue similarly in economics that only unethical mechanisms allow ongoing profits from reproduction once capital is no longer employed in reproduction. And the information itself cannot be considered capital.
It's exactly why "many authors [did not get] paid .. under the old paper model" too : It's inefficient, even unethical, to involve unnecessary resources in reproduction, so authors were excluded, lost any negotiating power, and their share shrank to almost nothing. Ya know, copyright was created for the purpose censorship, maybe authors would've remained better payed if they'd outlawed books not signed by the original author.
Academia never tried paying researchers for their publications, instead they found other work like teaching and made publication a condition of employment. It worked considerably better until academia also made oversupplying researchers profitable.
* In practice, there are folks voluntarily paying for the seed boxes that distribute the massive torrents containing millions of ebooks, but that's still rounding error.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:25 PM on October 8, 2014
« Older Just do it already | Bowling ball pendulum wave Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by clockzero at 9:36 PM on September 10, 2014 [25 favorites]