How to use this Page

For the past two years, Jake and I have lived in a two-bedroom, 900-square-foot apartment with one bathroom. As of last April, we added Ripley the sixty-pound dog to that equation. Then, in November, we got married, and once you get married, people assume you’ll do “adult” things like have babies and buy expensive cars. We did neither.

In fact, we wouldn’t have even gone house shopping if not for my claustrophobic stress levels—and the boxes filled with unused wedding gifts in my so-called “office,” which doubled as Jake’s closet. We thought maybe we’d consider buying a house in June of 2012. Then, in April, crushed by the weight of our belongings and lack of yard, Jake said, “I think we should start looking at houses.”

“Give us more space!!”

Furthermore, the houses here had no character. They were faceless, soulless, and lacking in history or sentimentality. Based on my claustrophobia and my love of all things classic, I felt a teaspoon of hopelessness as we set out to shop.

Let me tell you, it wasn’t easy at first. We started with models in neighborhoods at the base of the White Tank Mountains. The models were excellent (that is their intended purpose). However, lack of yard and far off location deterred me and suffocated my enthusiasm. There were the occasional nightmare houses, too: the one that smelled like cat urine, for instance, or the one that had a carpeted master bathroom with no door separating the toilet from the rest of the room. I had visions of waking up in the morning to Jake on the porcelain throne. Shiver.

Then, we did find a house we liked with a perfect view; a nice, updated interior; and a family who seemed happy to move. It was located at the base of the Estrella Mountains, which was fine, except I knew it would be a lifestyle change. No longer would we be within five minutes of our friends, our gym, or our dog park. We put in an offer regardless, and I prayed and prayed that we were doing the right thing. God is a smart guy, however, and He allowed the offer to fall through. Back to square one …

The soon-to-be Bauer abode.

From 900-square-feet we will grow to 2800. From two bed, one bath, we have become four bed, three bath, with a massive kitc

Southwest Philadelphia was my growing-up place.  It was the kind of community I now tend to think of as reminiscent of Thornton Wilder’s Our Town; there was a pervasive sense of social security intrinsic to the very nature of that neighborhood.  Stability was at the core of community life.  It was enshrined in churches and schools, as well as enduring friends whose longevity even now captures the essence of youthful memories.

            There was the coveted childhood occupation of being personally selected to run an errand to the corner grocery store.  Such an expedition not only netted pocket change, often enough to cover tickets to a Saturday matinee at the Lindy Theater, but also allowed one the no-cost distraction of a pastime known as “dropping in,” a typically Philadelphian pleasure rarely tapped by suburbanites.

            During World War II, families on our street were urged to develop the empty field behind our homes into what eventually became known fondly as “Victory gardens.”  This gave my parents the opportunity to become involved in a project which was not only rewarding but fun.

            Although necessarily molded from the same patterns, rowhouses did not lack individualized interpretation.  People discovered ways of personalizing their homes, and streets were distinguished by the results.  After I was married and moved away, our young children, having become accustomed to the split-level landscape in which they lived, always made a game of finding Grandmom’s house when we visited my parents.  Its boldly painted green sunburst door became a symbol of the loving welcome they always received there.

            Philadelphia, profoundly and affectionately, is a city of neighborhoods, and remnants of neighborhood memories rightly remain to soothe as well as to structure.  An occasional, cogent reminder of their unifying significance casts a welcome, prismatic glow on memories past.

     &n

4 Comments on remembering my mother on her birthday, with her own words, last added: 5/25/2012

Display Comments

Wendy said, on 5/22/2012 9:49:00 AM

Beautiful, Beth. xo

Jeannine Atkins said, on 5/22/2012 5:36:00 PM

Wow. I love this photo. Not least of which is seeing you in her.

Janice Kephart said, on 5/22/2012 6:28:00 PM

That door in the middle of the block. The iron steps up the back way. The big field in the back, we never went into. That was the Victory Garden field, I remember. The tiny kitchen where even there Mom would make great meals for Grandmom, while Grandpop would sit in the tiny front foyer facing the block. It became the place where Mom took care of Grandmom when she was so sick, and we would accompany her on visits, one at a time. Memories of a little sister, in a place of so long ago. Where there was always love, because there was always our mother.

Lilian Nattel said, on 5/24/2012 7:45:00 PM

I'm glad you have the memory of her.

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

24841. The day in gay in comics part 2: “Major Iconic” Male DC character to come out

15 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: Heidi MacDonald, on 5/22/2012
Blog: PW -The Beat (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  DC, Add a tag

Share this link on Facebook!

Looks like DC is really taking some chances and instead of another popular lesbian, a male DC character will reveal he is gay:

“One of the major iconic DC characters will reveal that he is gay in a storyline in June,” Courtney Simmons, DC Entertainment’s senior vice president of publicity, confirmed to ABC News.

As for who, we can’t even guess.

Alan Scott, the original Green Lantern? The Spectre? Ras Al Ghul? Batman Earth Two?

BTW, we tried to think of an image for this post and the best we could do was Batman and Robin again. Sorry.

15 Comments on The day in gay in comics part 2: “Major Iconic” Male DC character to come out, last added: 5/22/2012

Display Comments

Jesse said, on 5/22/2012 9:59:00 AM

It’ll be Shazam. Then when sales suck it will be because fanboys are homophobes not that Shazam sucks. I don’t know much about Shazam but I don’t think he had a sexual orientation to begin with plus it will differentiate from Supes.

Richard Caldwell said, on 5/22/2012 10:11:00 AM

Shazam would be another strong possibility, if only for the subversive slap at Marvel.

sam said, on 5/22/2012 10:16:00 AM

Maybe they can get Kevin Smith to write the story so the character can also get AIDS. AIDS, I tell you! AAAAAAIIIIIDDDDSSS!

Jason A. Quest said, on 5/22/2012 10:22:00 AM

Icon?

Synsidar said, on 5/22/2012 11:01:00 AM

Readers will have to see who the icon is, and what the basis for his announcement is. In an article posted today on conversion therapy, Slate’s William Saletan wrote:

Homosexuality is fundamentally personal, not political. Like heterosexuality, it varies from person to person, and it can evolve over a lifetime. Experience and research suggest it’s extremely unlikely that you can change your sexual orientation, and you’re better off accepting who you are.

I hope the storyline has some psychological depth.

SRS

Thomas Wayne said, on 5/22/2012 11:15:00 AM

Again, I just don’t understand why the need to change an established characters sexual orientation…why not just create a new, solid, gay character??

Like I said yesterday, if someone decided that we need a transgendered character – do we set Aquaman up for pre-op so we can now have AquaWoman? If you want a religous character do you suddenly make Superman a Christian or Muslim? How about Green Lantern as a bi-sexual? Changing established characters is not diversity, it’s social pandering. You want a gay Christian struggling with his place in the world you create him and develop the character, you don’t take the Spectre and suddenly make him gay and at a crossroads with the All Mighty. And as far as diversity goes, DC is totally hypocritical about all of this..because thy took arguably their strongest female character, who has spent over the last twenty years in a wheel chair and gave her her mobility back. Why? There where like 42 Batgirls running around at the time this decision was made…why take your strongest and most important female character and change her into something she wasn’t?
Apparently their need for diversity extends to alternative lifestyles but not the handicapped.

SRS brought up the point on the other thread that new characters often aren’t accepted by readers. One would assume this goes double for gay characters.

However, that doesn’t seem to be a problem for KEVIN KELLER over at Archie. Archie comics are, generally speaking, far more wholesome and conservative than super hero comics, and they had very little problem introducing a new, fresh from the creator’s mind gay character that seems to be widely accepted.

Apperantly DC and Marvel couldn’t do this and get the sales bump they want or need.

Imagine if Archie had been outed, he and Jughead are a couple or Betty and Veronica as a couple or so on…it’s unecessary and out of character. Fan’s would have been outraged. The character’s have been established for decades, so why change for the sake of change, shock value and/or social pandoring? Archie Comics did it right. If a character is good it will work without the drastic changes.

This falls into the same vein as the Miles Morales character at Marvel – They chose to make him Spiderman as opposed to giving him his own super hero identity. Why? Is the character not strong enough for his own identity? If he’s not, why bother creating him. The only reason is to shock readers into a sales spike, becaue if the writers really believed in social change or minority characters you don’t create the same character over again and simply give him a different skin color.

I think Marvel and DC should look at how Archie and his buddies at Riverdale are handling things. A new (gay) character that stands on his own without strip mining the past or another characters creative history for the sake of appearing socially diverse.

And that’s the key here, DC and Marvel don’t really care if they are socially diverse, the just want to appear that way – otherwise Mr. Terrific and Static Shock would not have been cancelled after 8 issues and Barbara would still be in her wheel chair.
I get more pissed everytime I think about that last one – Barbara Gordon as Oracle is ten times the character that her Batgirl is.

Richard Caldwell said, on 5/22/2012 11:15:00 AM

(insert joke about variant covers here)

CagedLeo730 said, on 5/22/2012 11:23:00 AM

@KET so pandering is only bad when you’re not #1. So Marvel is not doing this to boost the sales of Astonishing X-Men?

Jesse said, on 5/22/2012 11:32:00 AM

@ Synsidar, you hope the story has psychological depth? That would really be impressive from DC. Psychological depth would be more of a revelation than a character being gay. Unfortunately, whoever this poor bastard ends up being he is going to have to carry being an “icon,” a gay icon on his shoulders. He will end up being written by committee or at least “Didiotorial” oversight and become the world most boring gay character.

BiffordMichael said, on 5/22/2012 11:47:00 AM

Everybody wants Wally West back…

Synsidar said, on 5/22/2012 11:49:00 AM

That would really be impressive from DC. Psychological depth would be more of a revelation than a character being gay.

I think that making Bruce Wayne gay could work, but how would people react? Doing an Elseworlds story about that would be a nice example of using a character concept as a starting point, not as the whole person, and writing him well to develop ideas.

SRS

Naveed said, on 5/22/2012 11:59:00 AM

@ BiffordMichael —-> AMEN bROTHER! i was one of those not to pleased by Barry Allen’s return…..bring back Wally West in any form!

For it to be an icon??? No WW, forget supes or Batman…nor Green Lanthern. You have the Flash family left, one of its numerous speedsters no doubt.

Jesse said, on 5/22/2012 12:05:00 PM

The big 2 are SO behind on this. I’m sorry but does NBC or someone have major sitcoms based on gay couples? Now we get gay icons and weddings in comics? Sorry superhero comics that was a broad stroke. It’s a little self absorbed. It’s like Switzerland coming out against anti-Semitism in 1960. Good to know but where were you 20 years ago?

SF said, on 5/22/2012 1:18:00 PM

@Thomas Wayne:

If someone you knew in real life, someone you’d known for a while, for years, and had long thought of as heterosexual (and had acted as heterosexual in all your interactions with him or her) came out to you as gay, would that be so very different from some of the scenarios you’re sketching out as problematic? Or came out as transgendered, to go with your Aquaman example?

I don’t see how having an established and apparently heterosexual character coming out as gay would be such a bad thing. Some people spend a good portion of their lives in the closet before coming out. Or are out only in some parts of their lives and not in others. Or take a while to figure this stuff out for themselves. I’d think you could use an already established and apparently heterosexual character to tell good stories about that experience. It worked just fine for Renee Montoya.

Changing established characters isn’t necessarily pandering because characters change, just like people change.

This is all somewhat moot, because it seems that the character is one that hasn’t yet been re-introduced in the new DCU. So his orientation is going to be a retcon, a change to past continuity in its way no different than any of the other changes to past continuity that we’ve already seen for other characters the new DCU. I’d guess that whoever it is, within the new continuity, he’ll be gay from the get-go, which means it will be closer to the scenario you’re looking for, actually.

And I think you can tell good stories with those sorts of characters as well – like Karolina Dean and Xavin over in Runaways, or Hulking and Wiccan over in Young Avengers. I agree, there should be more new characters that are LGBT from their inception.

But it seems to me that having an established character come out could be a good thing. I could see where that might be good for a closeted teen or twentysomething to read. Or for the friend of someone who just came out. That kind of thing just as much a part of life and it would be nice to see it reflected in comics.

Either way, this is all just speculation, and will continue to be so even once the character is revealed. Whether it works will depend on how well-written and drawn the stories involving the character are.

Joey Manley said, on 5/22/2012 1:21:00 PM

It’s gotta be Sgt. Rock. I’ll bet my hat.

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

24842. Whoopi Goldberg: Northstar to propose to Kyle in Astonishing X-Men #50

10 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: Heidi MacDonald, on 5/22/2012
Blog: PW -The Beat (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  News, Marvel, Add a tag

Share this link on Facebook!

Well, after a grueling morning spent watching The View, as one might have expected, it was the nerd of the bunch, Whoopi Goldberg, who announced that “Marvel is making history with an issue on sale tomorrow, as Northstar will propose to Kyle with a gay wedding in a future issue.”

This prompted Joy Behar to ask “Can Batman and Robin come out of the closet now?”

Apparently, yes.

Goldberg went on to say that when she was a kid reading comics she never saw an array of people, so this was a very good thing, prompting Behar to say that “Marvel is cutting edge.”

Then the panel moved on to a university that had mistakenly labeled a department “The department of Pubic Affairs.”

Tee hee hee!

10 Comments on Whoopi Goldberg: Northstar to propose to Kyle in Astonishing X-Men #50, last added: 5/22/2012

Display Comments

Steve Morris said, on 5/22/2012 8:47:00 AM

I hope Kyle says no, and then boards a rocket to Mars where he will never be seen again. God, Northstar, why couldn’t you marry someone interesting? Hercules is single, for goodness’ sake!

Torsten Adair said, on 5/22/2012 8:57:00 AM

So the wedding will be in Canada?

John Shableski said, on 5/22/2012 9:17:00 AM

I guess the consolation is that Whoopie says she’s read comics and she actually made an effort to at least look at the sample art.

I was also hoping to see someone from Marvel getting to make the announcement.

Behar’s still an idiot. Marvel’s cutting edge? Archie Comics already did this ummm….just a few weeks ago?

Kevin said, on 5/22/2012 9:38:00 AM

If Mickey says Marvel’s on the cutting edge…they’re on the cutting edge. Do not question The Mouse.

Shawn Kane said, on 5/22/2012 10:10:00 AM

If Joy Behar weren’t on the show, I could stand to watch it but I agree with John, Marvel did it first.

sam said, on 5/22/2012 10:21:00 AM

What band of homophobic supervillains will band together to try to stop the wedding? The Watchdogs? Turner D. Century? The Crusader?

joe.distort said, on 5/22/2012 11:17:00 AM

TURNER D CENTURY SHOULD BE IN EVERYTHING

best character.

jason said, on 5/22/2012 12:11:00 PM

the only good thing chuck austen ever did was hint that northstar and iceman were gonna get it on. damn you kyle!

Daniel said, on 5/22/2012 12:40:00 PM

I guess marvel is so cutting edge Wildstorm did it in The Authority a full ten years ago exactly. Go marvel…

Karl Savage said, on 5/22/2012 6:44:00 PM

@Daniel LOLOLOLOLZ!!! Seriously. And now the DCnU has cut their nuts off (figuratively, of course).

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

24843. How Much for That Dinosaur in the Window?

1 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: Greg Leitich Smith, on 5/22/2012
Blog: GregLSBlog (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  dinosaurs, Add a tag

Last weekend saw a bit of (still ongoing) intrigue in the paleo-world.

As reported by Britain's Daily Mail newspaper on Thursday, Dallas-based Heritage Auctions had scheduled a fossil auction in New York City, including a 25-foot long, 8-foot tall mounted specimen of Tarbosaurus (or Tyrannosaurus) bataar.  T.bataar is basically an Asian version of Tyrannosaurus rex and, indeed, may belong to the same genus.  So far as is known, T.bataar is found only in the Nemegt Formation of the Gobi Desert of Mongolia and, possibly China.   

According to the Daily Mail, the specimen was found in Mongolia and acquired by a British collector in 2005.  The collector

assembled and mounted half the specimen but because the project proved quite expensive he struck a deal with a fellow enthusiast in America who helped fund it.  The half-built dinosaur was shipped across the Atlantic to Florida where it was completed. 

The Daily Mail article goes on to quote a representative of Heritage Auctions as saying that "the specimen was found over ten years ago in the Gobi Desert."

Apart from the usual concern about scientifically interesting specimens falling into private hands, why was there intrigue?  Well, on Thursday, a letter, by Mark Norell, of the American Museum of Natural History, was posted cross several paleo mailing lists.  It read, in relevant part:

As someone who is intimately familiar with these faunas, these specimens were undoubtedly looted from Mongolia. There is no legal mechanism (nor has there been for over 50 years) to remove vertebrate fossil material from Mongolia. These specimens are the patrimony of the Mongolian people and should be in a museum in Mongolia. As a professional paleontologist, am appalled that these illegally collected specimens (with no associated documents regarding provenance) are being are being sold at auction.

The President of Mongolia issued a letter expressing concern, as did a representative of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences:

The auctioning of such specimens fuels the illegal fossil trade and must be stopped.  If you could provide detailed information on the provenance(s) of these specimens, I will then pass on this information to the President of Mongolia....I strongly urge you not to auction the other specimens we have indicated until their legality is fully resolved.  Even if the owner indicates that they did not come from Mongolia, we suggest that you investigate this matter closely as sometimes collectors falsify information or documents to make illegal specimens appear ":legal".

A Petition urging Heritage Auctions not to go forward with the sale was then published here.  In response, the President of Heritage Auctions stated that

We have no reason to believe that any laws enforced by the United States have been vi

1 Comments on How Much for That Dinosaur in the Window?, last added: 5/23/2012

Display Comments

Lindsey Lane said, on 5/23/2012 6:50:00 AM

Quelle intrique!!

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

24844. The portrait Andrew never painted

10 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: James Gurney, on 5/22/2012
Blog: Gurney Journey (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  Add a tag

Andrew Wyeth's father, N.C. Wyeth died in an accident just as young Andy was establishing himself as an artist. As Andrew (1917-2009) recalls in this rare interview, filmed at the time of his 80th birthday, he never got around to painting a portrait of his dad, even though N.C. was a very important figure in his life.


(Video link) "I made drawings of him, but nothing important, and I think that was a great tragedy of my life when he was killed, that I hadn't done it. It changed my whole outlook on portraiture for me personally. When you know something, and feel it, and have a love for it, my God, do it. Don't let it go by."

Andrew Wyeth on Wikipedia
Thanks, Paul

10 Comments on The portrait Andrew never painted, last added: 5/23/2012

Display Comments

CoryDEVO said, on 5/22/2012 9:00:00 AM

This is a great video. Extremely inspiring. Great post.

Eileen said, on 5/22/2012 9:23:00 AM

Fabulous! Wonderful! Thank you!

Eileen Keelan said, on 5/22/2012 9:24:00 AM

Brilliant post! I have admired Wyeth for years ever since a friend of mine loaned me the Helga pictures book, I was totally smitten by the beauty of them and I love his other work for its simplicity of subject and the nature of the paintings. Thanks for putting up this lovely inspirational video!

Michael said, on 5/22/2012 12:29:00 PM

Two great quotes from other interviews with Andy Wyeth:

"I prefer winter and fall, when you can feel the bone structure in the landscape---the lonliness of it---the dead feeling of winter. Something waits beneath it---the whole story doesn't show."
— Andrew Wyeth

Andrew Wyeth, commented on his teacher's view of this criticism during an interview with Brian Sherwin in 2008: "People only make you swerve. I won’t show anybody anything I’m working on. If they hate it, it’s a bad thing, and if they like it, it’s a bad thing. An artist has to be ingrown to be any good."[25] N.C. advised Wyeth to work from one's own perspective and imagination; to work for "effect" means the artist is not fully exploring their artistic abilities and as a result the artist will not realize their potential.

William R. Moore said, on 5/22/2012 12:44:00 PM

Thanks for posting this, don't believe I ever saw this. I discovered his work in a Life magazine article while in school in the sixties. His work was not highly thought of in Universities and the Art Establishment. I have collected many books about Wyeth and have only seen one original. His work speaks to me on a much deeper level than the academic things that go into a good painting.

Dan Gurney said, on 5/22/2012 6:32:00 PM

This got me to wondering.... I'll bet you've got some portraits of Tom done years ago when you were hoisting about.

Craig Banholzer said, on 5/22/2012 9:48:00 PM

Thanks. It always gives me goose bumps to hear Wyeth speak. The man was entirely integral to the work he created.

Glenn Keelan said, on 5/23/2012 1:59:00 AM

Wonderfully inspiring video link James. Thank you for sharing. hugs, Glenn :)

PatternGhost said, on 5/23/2012 7:30:00 AM

I'm lucky enough to have a huge collection of his stuff at my local museum in Greenville, SC. I grew up with it. The textures he achieves with watercolor are amazing in person.

PatternGhost said, on 5/23/2012 7:30:00 AM

I'm lucky enough to have a huge collection of his stuff at my local museum in Greenville, SC. I grew up with it. The textures he achieves with watercolor are amazing in person.

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

24845. Inside the jukebox

1 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: johnmanders, on 5/22/2012
Blog: John Manders' Blog (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  book promotion, illustration process, Add a tag

Here is an image I was very excited to draw from Jack and the Giant Barbecue—Jack inside the jukebox, trying to get at his daddy’s recipe book.  In the original manuscript the giant had hidden the recipe book inside a cash register. We ran into trouble when drawing that because a cash register and a jukebox are similar in shape—box-y with a rounded top—so would have been confusing to the reader. We needed to hide the book somewhere else. Eric Kimmel asked me “How do you feel about having Jack lay low in the innards of a jukebox?” Well, as he guessed, I loved it. Here are the sketches, a couple of photos of a jukebox’ innards, and the final painting.

Display Comments

Jerry Russell said, on 5/22/2012 8:35:00 AM

Nice!! I love how the tonearm and the records sweep you in, right to Jack.

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

24846. "The Year of the Book"

13 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: Abigail Halpin, on 5/22/2012
Blog: Theodesign.com (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  Add a tag

 

Today's release day for The Year of the Book. Written by Andrea Cheng, The Year of the Book is full of the magic of reading, the value of friendship and the importance of family, as narrated by the delightfully bookish Anna Wang. It's a lovely story and was a joy to illustrate. So to celebrate, let's do a giveaway!

Here's the rules:

*To enter, leave a comment with the name of your favorite childhood book. You know, the one you read so many times it fell apart and had to be held together with packing tape and/or that you can quote verbatim still to this day.

*You have a week to enter (until 11:59 PM EST, Tuesday May 29, to be ultra-precise). The winning entry will be chosen randomly using this ever-handy site and announced here, Wednesday May 30.

*And if you tweet and/or blog about the giveaway, I'll enter your name a second time into the running (just give me a heads up in your comment that you did so). Neat, huh?

Ready then? 1, 2, 3, go!

13 Comments on "The Year of the Book", last added: 5/23/2012

Display Comments

the dogs' mother said, on 5/22/2012 8:15:00 AM

book can save your life -
""In the water, Hickman said he just focused on keeping his feet pointed downstream, like a character in a book from the popular "Pendragon" series he once read.
That advice may have helped save his life.
The current pushed him toward a narrow rock shelf just above Wallace Falls (270 feet) northeast of Seattle, and he was able to scramble out to wait for rescuers."

Laura said, on 5/22/2012 9:00:00 AM

A Little Princess was always a favorite.

Mary MacArthur said, on 5/22/2012 9:02:00 AM

My dearest favorite was Dear Mili, by the brothers Grimm and illustrated by Maurice Sendak, God rest his soul. God rest all their souls, come to think of it; not just the recently deceased need our thoughts.

Charles Eubanks said, on 5/22/2012 9:14:00 AM

Congratulations on your book release, Abigail!

My favorite childhood book was David and the Phoenix by Edward Ormondroyd.

Celtic Traveler said, on 5/22/2012 10:54:00 AM

The one I read the most was The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis. Even when I didn't read it hungrily I'd flip through and look the gorgeous illustrations by Pauline Baynes.

Brooke Boynton Hughes said, on 5/22/2012 11:08:00 AM

Congratulations on the new book Abigail!!

One of my very favorite books as a kid was "The Little Moon Theatre" by Irene Haas. The illustrations were so wonderful to explore and I loved the story.

Also, I tweeted your giveaway. Woot!

Julia said, on 5/22/2012 12:17:00 PM

I propped my back against the hamper in the hallway till 1:00 a.m. to finish "Charlotte's Web."

Lauren said, on 5/22/2012 12:56:00 PM

According to my parents, I demanded to be read Goodnight Moon every night before bed. But the first books I remember reading and loving were the Narnia series!

Amy Proud said, on 5/22/2012 2:27:00 PM

The book looks marvellous! Congratulations. I used to get my dad to read Brer Rabbit stories round and round :) he was very good at doing voices!

rebekah said, on 5/22/2012 7:57:00 PM

HOW can I pick just one?? "Benjamin's 365 Birthdays" was one of my very favorites. It was such a fun concept to me. I also loved the illustrations.

Steven Andrews said, on 5/23/2012 6:31:00 AM

Wow! The book looks great, Abigail - beautiful illustrations.

One of my favourite childhood books was 'Haunted House' by Jan Pienkowski. I must have read it hundreds of times.

And I tweeted/FB the competition details as well.

Good luck with the launch!

Geek+Nerd said, on 5/23/2012 11:43:00 AM

Oh my gosh, so many, but my first thought was "Mandy" by Julie Andrews - which is very similar, to the much more famous Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett. I read both of those books so many times that they practically disintegrated.

Tara Sullivan said, on 5/23/2012 2:43:00 PM

Congratulations on your latest success! I love your work! As far as childhood books, it's SO difficult to narrow them down, but I think I have to go with the Little House series by Laura Ingalls Wilder...though Pippi Longstocking series by Astrid Lindgren is a VERY close second. I tweeted about your giveaway... [email protected]
Best wishes!

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

24847. Countdown Wednesday

10 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: Genevieve Petrillo, on 5/22/2012
Blog: Cupcake Speaks (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  kidlit, acceptance, writing, children's literature, picture book writing, countdown, Add a tag

Today, we are counting down about fear. Mom is writing a story about courage.  I have no experience with courage, but fear is my specialty. 

Things That Scare Me

3. Squeaky Wheels – There’s an old saying that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I would like to say to the lawn guys, “GET SOME OIL!” Last week, they rolled around a wheel barrow with a squeaky wheel that scared me half to death. The wheel sounded like a screaming panther, a crying poodle, and a baby who wants a lollipop. I ran and hid and ran again and hid again. Mom said, “What are you afraid of?” and “It’s a wheelbarrow!” and “I’m trying to write a story about a brave chef, and you’re NOT helping!” 

2. Cats – A cat down the street watches me all the time. Whenever I walk down that way, I see him staring out his window wondering how he can kill me. I slick my ears back as far as they go, and walk as fast as Mom will let me.  Cats – ugh. 

1. The golf cart – Sometimes people in my neighborhood ride in a golf cart.  I have seen it many, many, MANY times.  It scares me anyway.  Yesterday, Mom brought me right over to it so I could smell it and stop being afraid.  I was reluctant at first.  Then I took a sniff.  OMG! It smells more terrifying than it looks and sounds.  It has clearly run over a squirrel or two, driven through some mulch and fertilizer, and was filled with *gulp*power tools – yes, tools scare me too! The driver was a fire breathing DRAGON.  After he talked to Mom for a while, he pulled a burning stick out of his throat and crushed it into an ashtray.  Then he drove away puffing smoke out of his mouth. *shiver*

Things That Scare Mom

3. Being a one-book-wonder. Mom loves her book named Keep Your Ear On the Ball.

It helps kids understand how to be a friend, and it gets good reviews from people who read it.  Mom calls it her “first book” and hopes nobody asks, “What’s the name of your second book.” Lots of times, she visits schools to talk to kids about being an author, and she play games with them (while I wait at home hoping the golf cart doesn’t come back). 

2. See #3

1. See #2

10 Comments on Countdown Wednesday, last added: 5/23/2012

Display Comments

Susanna Leonard Hill said, on 5/22/2012 8:10:00 AM

Cupcake, you are very wise to be afraid of cats (they scratch!) and fire-breathing dragons (I don’t like them either!) And I totally understand your mom’s worry about being a one-book wonder. I am lucky. I have more than one. But it’s been a LONG time since I sold one, and I’m afraid maybe there won’t be any more

dogdaz said, on 5/22/2012 9:34:00 AM

CupCake – Cats are not so bad if you know the right ones. But, at your size, best to keep away from scary ones outside the window.
Mom – You are already a blog wonder, so just keep writing. Keep your eye on the prize and surprising things can happen.
-DogDaz

firstandfabulous said, on 5/22/2012 4:25:00 PM

Cupcake, don’t let cats know you’re scared. That’s part of the fix to being scared of them. If you can convince them, you’ll have won that battle. Buck and and brave up, girlfriend. Cats ain’t so tough. And we all know that ‘Ear’ is mom’s first book because we know mom. The publisher’s out there haven’t gotten that memo yet. WAKE UP, GUYS!

Genevieve Petrillo said, on 5/22/2012 5:47:00 PM

Thanks for the encouragement, Susanna. I will never get close enough to a cat to get scratched. Mom swears that if she just gets a second book, she’ll be satisfied. I don’t believe her! I’m pretty sure she wants to be you!!

Love and licks,
C

Genevieve Petrillo said, on 5/22/2012 5:51:00 PM

Thanks, DogDaz. I do like my cat blog friends a lot. It’s the cat in the window and sometimes stray cats under cars waiting to ambush me that I’m afraid of. Mom likes your advice. She says her eye will be on the prize… In between watching me, in case I’m naughty.

Love and licks,
C

Genevieve Petrillo said, on 5/22/2012 6:00:00 PM

“WAKE UP GUYS!” That made us laugh, Gemma! Mom hopes all those guys heard you. I will try to be brave when I see the cat in the window. I hope he doesn’t notice that my ears are almost touching my tail, and my back feet are passing my front feet trying to walk faster.

Love and licks,
C

rumpydog said, on 5/23/2012 3:42:00 AM

I’m afraid of the lawn mower and weed eater outside and the vacuum inside. I’m also afraid of a worldwide cookie shortage.

Donna Martin said, on 5/23/2012 5:46:00 AM

Hi Cupcake!

I am so inspired by you and your lovely mom that I wrote a tribute post about YOU today…check it out…http://donasdays.blogspot.com/2012/05/chasing-my-tail.html…

Tell your mom that I would be THRILLED to be the one book wonder…at least I would be able to say I sold ONE book…lol…also remind her that she writes for the sheer love of writing…and if she concentrates on that, along with being the best writer she can be, then all else will eventually come along because she deserves it!

Take care, Cupcake, and try not to be too afraid of those cats out there…some of them are just doggies in disguise…;0)

Donna L Martin
http://www.donasdays.blogspot.com

Genevieve Petrillo said, on 5/23/2012 6:59:00 AM

OMG, Rumpy! The idea of a cookie shortage almost made my tiny head explode!

Love and frightened, frantic licks,
C

Genevieve Petrillo said, on 5/23/2012 7:01:00 AM

Thank you Donna! Mom and I are honored. I LOVED your post, of course. I’m always on board when something is all about me. I am going to put a link to it on my blog, so more friends will see it. xo

Love and lots and lots of licks,
C

Add a Comment

Every time you yell about traditional publishing it just looks like a dumptruck full of sour grapes. Which le

96 Comments on On Self-Publishing and Having a Chip on One's Shoulder, last added: 5/25/2012

Display Comments

S L Jenan said, on 5/22/2012 8:35:00 AM

The only place I disagree is that I think frustration with the traditional publishing process is OXYGEN. Every rejection drives better prose, better characters, more interlaced, compelling plot.

Even if I do decide to go the self-published route (and the appeal there is the covered-wagon, pioneer kind), my writing will have benefited from the struggle.

JD Rhoades said, on 5/22/2012 8:45:00 AM

Well, some of the most vocal "chippers", as you put it, are people I know who published some good books, worked like dogs to promote them on their own dime, made money for their publishers...and STILL got shitcanned for being "midlist" and not being bestsellers.

Even people in publishing will admit to you privately that the system is broken. On a number of occasions in my trad publishing days I was told with a sad smile and a shrug that "yes, we know this doesn't make sense, but this is the way we do it."

All that said, I agree you've got to let go of the anger and disappointment sometime. A nice payout from Amazon has a way of helping with that.

Anne-Marie said, on 5/22/2012 8:46:00 AM

Thank you for reminding us that whatever route we take, bad manners and bitterness are never a good idea.

I'm always astounded that writers sometimes forget that things "said" in print are forever, somewhere.

Anonymous said, on 5/22/2012 8:48:00 AM

I've worked hard not to be one of those self-published authors who has found success and has a chip on his shoulder.

But it's not easy, and that's because there's so much arrogance in old publishing. THEY have chips on their shoulders. Have you read the details of the DOJ settlement/suit with Carolyn Reidy? I think a prison sentence is needed here. This. Is. Criminal.

The main reason I went into self-publishing was because my publisher was screwing around with me. And then my publisher started to play games with me, using pen names and collaborating with other authors. And I got sick of it.

I do agree that authors should be careful not to have HUGE chips on their shoulders. But when you see an author who looks like he or she is bragging about success in self-publishing it's not always because of a chip on the shoulder. It's because they were screwed over by publishers who tampered with their careers...their incomes. That's serious business.

Frankly, Nathan, I believe you are a perfect example of an author who would THRIVE in self-publishing. If you don't believe me, write a short story, publish it for .99 in the KDP program, and see what happens. You need to hire a cover artist and a copyeditor. Instant Amazon bestseller! I would bet money on it. I've read your books: you're *very* talented, you have this platform established, and you would be well received.

Mary Maddox said, on 5/22/2012 8:50:00 AM

I've had two agents. The first lost interest when I switched from literary fiction to thrillers. The second let me go when he couldn't sell my thriller for the advance he wanted. Emotionally, it was a difficult experience, but I understood why publishers decided not to take a chance on the novel. Since I didn't want to rewrite (again), I started a small press and published it myself. I'm now starting to publish other writers. The process has given me more respect for what traditional publishers do. But their business models lead them to reject some good writing that could sell. Hence the success of many indie authors. I've also learned embarrassment about self-publishing is self-defeating. So is resentment toward agents and traditional publishers. After all, I might want to seek an agent for one of my novels.

Nathan Bransford said, on 5/22/2012 8:51:00 AM

Thanks, anon! We shall see.

And I should clarify that I don't think people should hide their disagreement and/or speak out about what they believe in. Just that the tone can be alienating to people who might otherwise be sympathetic to the argument.

Anonymous said, on 5/22/2012 8:54:00 AM

I'm anon @8:48...

Just to clarify: You publish for free on KDP. You price the story @ .99.

I know some think that's too low. But sometimes it's about volume. I'd rather sell 10,000 books @ .99 than 100 books at 10.00.

People have book budgets.

Rashad Pharaon said, on 5/22/2012 8:56:00 AM

Well said. No one's bound to either one.

You want to pursue Self-P? Go do it. You want to pursue Trad-P? Go do it.

Choice is good.

Debra Dunbar said, on 5/22/2012 8:59:00 AM

Nice post!
I'm going self-pub on my first novel because I want to get my book out there in the hands of the reading public sooner rather than later, and I'm actually excited about handling the publishing and promotion aspects myself or via paid experts. I may be psycho, but that sorta thing is fun, fun for me!

Still, I love the idea of traditional pub and hope to go that route in the near future with other books.

Julie Daines said, on 5/22/2012 8:59:00 AM

Oh my gosh! Thanks you a thousand times over for writing this.

Shevi said, on 5/22/2012 9:06:00 AM

Great article, but I'm willing to bet any self-published author who reads this will not see himself in it, even if he does have a chip on his shoulder. (Strange expression, don't you think? What kind of chip is it? A poker chip? A cow chip? Bet it's not a Pringle's chip, because then they'd have no reason to be crabby. They'd just be chopping away on that chip. But I digress.)

I have less a problem with indie authors who see themselves as you and me against the giant, greedy, corporate, money-making publishing machine. They can shake their fists all they want. They're like flies on a horse. Why should the horse care? And I'm not even the horse, so I care even less.

What does bother me is that some of these authors who have chips on their shoulders take their rage out against readers.

Sometimes it's outright, like when these writers attack reviewers. You don't even have to be indie published to do it. I'm a Vine Voice reviewer for Amazon, and a group of other Vine Voices told me about one traditionally published novelist who does this on a regular basis. That's really a stupid thing to do. It's not going to get you better reviews, and it's not going to make the people reading those reviews feel less inclined to agree with the reviewer.

Sometimes the rage is less outright, but it's still really, really wrong, like all those self-published authors who beg people on Facebook to like their fan pages or those on Twitter who beg people to download their free or $0.99 e-books. Then they have a crying fit, because they couldn't get 100 likes or they didn't get to number one on the Amazon Kindle charts.

What these writers fail to understand is that the world doesn't owe them anything. If you write a book only for yourself--to boost your ego or make a lot of money--no one will want to read it. Why? Because there are thousands upon thousands of books out there that were written for readers, books that give readers something, books that entertain, inspire, or inform. I'm not going to like you or buy your book just because you want me to. There has to be something in it for me, the reader.

Anyway, what really bugs me about writers like that is that I'm indie publishing my novels now, and so many people think all indie authors are the same. It also bothers me that sometimes the noisy wheel gets the grease. (Hmm, maybe that chip on their shoulders is the British kind that comes with fried fish. Might explain the grease.) When the hard sell does work, it means one more reader who's likely to think my book sucks because it's indie published, and all the indie published books they've read suck.

I guess I could join them, but instead of screaming, "Like me, and buy my book!" I could shout, "My books don't suck!" Nah. I'll just let my work speak for itself.

Mirka Breen said, on 5/22/2012 9:28:00 AM

Another good post. You are still Nate the Great.
A good reason to self-publish is because you are courageous, tireless, and want control over every aspect of the production. I admire the courage of those who go in for these reasons. Not being any of the above, I put my limited energy into writing and submitting, and now with traditionally published books, into some promoting.
If anyone thinks subbing will suck you dry, consider what being a full-time (self) Publisher will do to you. If you are up to it, you are heroic in my mind.
As to the jerks in the business, I actually think there are fewer than in most any other business. At least in kid-lit most folks are mensches.
But kvetching is a writerly prerogative. We’re so good at it, and without it- what’s the story?

Rick Daley said, on 5/22/2012 9:34:00 AM

I went indie for my first book, THE MAN IN THE CINDER CLOUDS, and in several interviews bloggers honed in on my history with an agent.

That relationship ended after she went six months without returning a call or email while a different book was on submission with a dozen publishers. Not the best case study, for sure, and while the interviewers seemed to ask questions setting me up for a kill shot toward her, I don't view the experience as negative. The editorial feedback I received while she was communicating helped me become a better writer, and I am thankful for that.

My personal growth trumps temporary hurt feelings. Not to get all cliche, but she taught me to fish instead of handing me a fish.

I have another indie book coming out this fall, but I plan to go traditional for my current WIP. I believe in a diversified portfolio...

Anonymous said, on 5/22/2012 9:35:00 AM

"Shevi" brings up a very good point:

"Anyway, what really bugs me about writers like that is that I'm indie publishing my novels now, and so many people think all indie authors are the same."

This is important for the public to know. All self-published authors are different, they all have different circumstances, and they all have different degrees of experience.

And not all are arrogant snarks :) When I released my own self-published book I made a point of not being arrogant because I didn't want people...readers and publishers I've worked with... to think I was doing it out of bitterness or arrogance. In my case, I just wanted to know what it was like to have control over my career and my work for once in my life. It's been a good experience so far.

Anonymous said, on 5/22/2012 9:53:00 AM

1. Traditional publishers suck! They and agents don't deserve any of my hard earned money.

2. Real readers don't know who I am online where I complain (usually daily) about traditional publishers. I write and publish under pen names. Besides, readers read books, they don't waste their time on writerly blogs.

3. I've never submitted my work to a literary agent and I never will.

4. From what I've heard, going with a traditional publisher only leads to frustration. No thank you.

That "chippy" enough for you?

Sara said, on 5/22/2012 9:54:00 AM

"Yes, the query process is used as a torture device in some countries." HA HA HA...{sigh} {bangs head on desk} YES.

I missed out on these chippy, entertaining rants and will now promptly try to find them.

Agree with all you said! I've met one self-pubbed author and was confused by what I'll call his bizarrely extreme defensiveness. It reminded me of the same sort of defensiveness that people displayed about online dating about 10+ years ago.
Them: "Yeah, I uh...am trying online dating...NOT BECAUSE I'M DESPERATE--BECAUSE I'M *NOT*!!! I'm just trying it because I'm tired of the bar scene!! NOT BECAUSE I'M DESPERATE!! But I'm definitely NOT DESPERATE...I just don't like to breathe cigarette smoke and be surrounded by drunk people. But I swear I'm really NOT desperate!"
Me: Dude. I never thought you were desperate. I actually think it's pretty awesome and online dating makes complete sense.

I bet in 10 more years, we'll see less defensiveness about self-pubbing.

Wyndes said, on 5/22/2012 9:59:00 AM

I must be a uniquely lazy reader. I have never actually researched an author's history to find out if they've ever been mean to anyone on the internet before buying their book. *must work harder*

Anonymous said, on 5/22/2012 10:01:00 AM

For the record, anon @9:34 is NOT to be connected in any way at all with Anon @9:53 :)

Sarah McCabe said, on 5/22/2012 10:10:00 AM

I'm a bit puzzled by your post. I haven't seen the attitude you describe from... well, any self published author that I know of. In fact, all the whining I see comes from people on the traditional publishing side of things. And I see a lot of people in the industry looking for ways to knock self publishing and self published authors.

And as far as authors speaking out against traditional publishing goes, it seems to me that most of the really vocal authors speaking out against traditional publishing are very successful. It doesn't seem to be hurting them at all.

Danyelle L. said, on 5/22/2012 10:17:00 AM

I agree 100%, but I think this goes both ways.

I have seen disdain and unkindness from those who self-publish directed towards those who choose to go the trade route. Name calling and over generalizing.

But I have also seen disdain and unkindness from those who are published commercially towards those who choose to go the self-publishing route. Other authors and writers who have flat out said that those who self-publish degrade their (trade published author's) talent and hard work.

I have pretty much given up on writer forums now, because of this attitude. I was sad to give up one forum in particular, because *in general* it's a great, uplifting place to be. But there are also a handful of vocal authors who paint everyone who self-publishes with the same broad stroke and look down on them.

I understand the chip that may be on either type of author's shoulder--trade or self-published--and sympathize. I do agree, though, that there is never a need for incivility. Never.

I wish there was a place online where writers and authors could go to support one another without judging each other on these silly hierarchies we've built for ourselves. So far, I haven't found one.

I think the biggest problem is that a vocal subset of each group paints the other with broad generalizations that cater to stereotypes instead of being happy that Author A found a path that works best for them. It may not be the best path for me, or vice versa, but that's okay. We both want the same thing, and it really shouldn't matter how we get there in the end.

Mira said, on 5/22/2012 10:23:00 AM

Nathan @ 8:53, that I completely agree with! Tone is very important!

Karen Akins said, on 5/22/2012 10:42:00 AM

Oh, this this THIS --> "It's frustrating. But frustration is to publishing what carbon dioxide is to breathing: a poisonous but inevitable byproduct. (What many self-published authors don't yet realize is that this is true of self-publishing too.)"

Andrew Leon said, on 5/22/2012 10:54:00 AM

I chose to self-publish for a number of reasons, not all of which I will point out, but I will mention a few:

1. The waste of traditional publishing -- I worked in a bookstore back when I was in college and was horrified when I discovered how many books are just thrown away every year. In a similar way that I am horrified about all the food fast food joints throw away. There needs to be a better way, and bookstores shouldn't be rewarded for poor ordering decisions. (Yes, I know this is a complicated system and it's the incentive of getting their money back that prompts stores to carry new authors, but it's a waste.)

2. I was ready. My book is good, and I know it's good. Kids love it. I didn't want to deal with the years it would have taken to get my book out there and, then, still have to do most (or all) of the marketing myself. If I'm going to have to do that anyway, I may as well be in control of the process.

3. Agents. And I know you were an agent, and I know there are good agents out there. However, it seems to be that the process has become reversed. Agents should work for the authors, which is how the whole thing developed, not the other way around.

Indiana Jim said, on 5/22/2012 10:54:00 AM

I'm not one for chips on my shoulder. It seems the majority of the vocal ones who really want to "stick it to the man" aren't among the more successful at it. Bitterness does not often drive success.

I have not published much aside from a couple small press things, but I WILL be self-publishing. Why? One simple reason: the math works.

Ryan Chin said, on 5/22/2012 10:55:00 AM

Exuding anger and bitterness is never a good thing. However, a little bit of, "You can kiss my a$$" can be pretty satisfying too!

Just don't be malicious about it. You never know when you might end up teaming up with the big guys for wider distribution.

Agree with Anon. You have enough of a platform to self publish.

Hart Johnson said, on 5/22/2012 11:38:00 AM

I've run into this on discussion forums--name callers--people saying I'm an idiot for pursuing traditional because I'm 'giving my money away. But the fact of the matter is GENRE matters A LOT (I write Cozy Mystery and YA--both still hot in traditional houses) and my personality dictates I need professional eyes after I think I'm done. I just know myself that well. This is a personal decision and anyone who does their homework and makes a decision is good by me. Anybody saying ALL PEOPLE should do what they do because there is only one way is annoying and I am probably going to tell them so.

Katie said, on 5/22/2012 11:45:00 AM

Nathan, I TOTALLY agree with what some others have said. You should self-pub some stuff!!! You would make a killing, and it would probably be an enjoyable experience for you. I was absolutely invigorated creatively after switching to self-pub, because I had total artistic freedom and that is such a creative boost for me. You have the platform, the savvy, the connections, the talent, and you have tons and tons of fans and friends who could give you advice or help. You could do VERY well for yourself...just saying.

Of course I'm eternally grateful for traditional publishers, because (as one person once put it) they've given me almost every favorite author I've ever had. But I now know it is not all sunshine and roses. Many, many friends have been screwed over by their contracts, their agents, their publishers and they've started speaking out about it honestly and loudly. There's a lot of ugliness in the industry, a lot of grossness that shouldn't happen, and some people have chosen to speak out strongly against that ugliness in order to help people avoid getting stuck with a terrible contract or other problems. I am SO PROUD of those who have made it their goal to inform writers about their options and the potential pitfalls they could encounter as they seek to be published.

Now, when you say "self-pubbers with chips on their shoulders," I don't know who you are talking about, although I immediately think of several names of famous and outspoken indie authors who might be described as having "a chip" on their shoulders. I will avoid mentioning anybody by name here, but I am thinking of at least 4 off the top of my head. But the hilarious thing is that all of these self-publishing authors I'm thinking of have decades of experience and at least dozens of books in traditional publishing (or they have experience with law, or contract negotiation, or whatnot). They aren't making a boogeyman out of trad publishing...they are speaking from their own professional experience! If a company or organization screws you over professionally, and you say "you know what, never again," and then you tell other people what happened and how to avoid it themselves, that's not a chip, that's just basic self-respect, not to mention kindness when it comes to the warning other people part.

HOWEVER, yes, I don't think all authors are cut out to go it alone, as it's hard work and you essentially have to be an entrepreneur. Also, I think that the flame wars between trad and indie authors should stop, and I think that all authors should respect and support each other rather than fighting. We need to be on each others' sides, not at each others' throats!! It's as bad as the mommy war stuff, with the breastfeed/bottle stuff and all that.

Helen Hollick said, on 5/22/2012 12:02:00 PM

I so agree! I am an indie author in the UK & traditional mainstream in the US, so I am lucky, I have the best of both worlds.
I am also the Historical Novel Society's UK review editor for indie published HF. Most are not too bad a read, a few are gems - more than too many are rejects. Why? Because the authors have not taken enough trouble to find out how a book should look when it is published, or have not had the thing edited (and sorry SP people, yes I know editors are expensive - but if you want to be taken seriously as an author - do it properly!) Most of the authors I contact about rejects are thrilled at having the errors pointed out, repair them and re-print. But those with a whole fish and chip shop on their shoulders.....? oh boy! I've had some not very nice responses ranging from "My book is fine, that's how I want it" (what? with the text left justified?) to "Everyone who has read it loves it, you don't know what you are talking about." Fine - I didn't love it and I do know what I'm talking about (occasionally)- and maybe the reason I've rejected it is the same reason agents and publishers have rejected it: the book is not well written enough. Everyone can write a book. Not everyone can write a readable book.

Melissa said, on 5/22/2012 12:18:00 PM

RE: "Well, some of the most vocal 'chippers', as you put it, are people I know who published some good books, worked like dogs to promote them on their own dime, made money for their publishers...and STILL got shitcanned for being 'midlist' and not being bestsellers."

I can certainly understand why traditionally-published writers take the self-publishing route after they get fed up with the industry itself — or because the industry gives up on them, often prematurely. However, I have very mixed feelings when they turn into "chippers" who can't find a single good word about the very publishers who handed them a built-in platform. Essentially, an audience.

Let's face it. Had some of these folks never been traditionally published in the first place, they'd have -0- street cred with self-published writers who are absolute beginners.

stephanie Queen said, on 5/22/2012 12:37:00 PM

Speaking of tone, the tone I dislike most--more than chippiness--is preachiness. You know, that preachy holier-than-though judgmental tone.

It comes across in blogs that tell you all about what you should be doing and not doing. You know the kind of blog that scolds those practices that it judges to be bad for whatever reason, by other bloggers.

That's the tone I dislike most.

I think everyone has a right to their own chip and a right to write all about it.

Anne R. Allen said, on 5/22/2012 12:41:00 PM

Thanks for tackling this prickly subject Nathan. I talked about it on my blog last week, too. Mostly I'm concerned about new writers feeling bullied into self-publishing by zealots who tell them they're morons to bother with querying agents. It's not an either/or issue, as Laura and Holly and others have said in these thoughtful comments. Many, many successful authors use both self-and trad. methods. Shoulder-chips are getting in the way of real dialogue. http://annerallen.blogspot.com/2012/05/indie-or-traditional-publishing-dont.html

Roger Floyd said, on 5/22/2012 12:50:00 PM

As an unpublished ficton author, it's difficult for me to know whether regular or self-publishing is the best way to go--I have no experience with either one. I've decided to try it the traditional way first because I want to learn from the experience of agents and editors in the process. Perhaps self-publishing will be next. Then again, perhaps it won't.

Anonymous said, on 5/22/2012 2:48:00 PM

A new anon because I am too lazy to log in.

I think that number two should be moved up to number one. I have put both J A Konrath and Barry Eisler on my do not buy list because of they're ranting and raving about traditional publishing.

I haven't put Bob Mayer on that list, yet. If he becomes unreasonable about the publishing process eg my way or the highway, then he'll get put on the do not buy list as well. Which would be a shame because I recommend his writing books and seminars to people who are serious about learning the craft of writing.

abc said, on 5/22/2012 3:10:00 PM

Peen?

amymarden said, on 5/22/2012 4:01:00 PM

I echo Roger's comment (a few comments ago). I sent maybe 7 queries to agents after I finished my first manuscript...then I read it again and realized it was far from finished and they had good reason to reject me! I started working on #2 and polishing #1, and soon I'll be looking to publish again.
The pro self-publishers are loud and sometimes negative, but they also have valid points. I disagree that negativity is never the route to go. Sometimes people need to wake up.
That said, being negative or critical and being whiny and self-loathing are very different. I don't know about the rest of the writer-blog-readers, but I can usually sniff the difference in 3 sentences.
Thank you for this post (and all your posts) and the links to related articles!

Megg Jensen said, on 5/22/2012 4:03:00 PM

We're not all chippy. ;)

There is hatred on both sides, Nathan. It's sad.

You'd think we'd all be united by our love of writing. Publication isn't and shouldn't be a competition.

I'm happy for my writing friends whether they self-pub or nab a trad contract. If they're happy, I'm happy.

Shelli (srjohannes) said, on 5/22/2012 4:56:00 PM

Grr - my last post did somethign wierd>

Take 2

I agree.

i think some self pubbers are disgruntled with traditional publishing process and I think some traditional authors are frustrated that self pubbers can get books out to readers without going through the longer vetted process.

I think all publishing is valid and I would hate to see any of publishing on either side go away. There is enough to go around and every path is different.

I do think self pubbers need to be more aware of what they are putting out. And take more pride in their work to put out a good product that is edited and professional.

I think the dialogue is effective but it is important to be professional and positive when dealing with anyone.

Hating on each other is not going to help this industry move forward in a positive way.

Cant we all just get along?? :)

Kristi Helvig said, on 5/22/2012 4:58:00 PM

I agree with some of this. I agree completely on the tone thing, but I think Chuck threw out the baby with the bathwater. There are valid points raised by those who self-publish, however those points can be lost in the mix when someone's tone is aggressive.

While it's true that people have often self-published because of an inability to find a traditional publisher, I don't think this will be the case much longer. Some writers who are business minded might want the added control of self-publishing. I adore my agent and am not opposed to traditional publishing, but I'm also very open to the idea of self-pubbing.

The danger comes in seeing one side as "bad," and the other as "good" when things are never that black and white. I think it's a great thing that authors have more options than ever before. :)

Anonymous said, on 5/22/2012 5:03:00 PM

"I have put both J A Konrath and Barry Eisler on my do not buy list because of they're ranting and raving about traditional publishing."

Yes, they do rant and rave. The approach they take gets tired. But the problem is that everything they say makes sense. I'm not trying to be snarky here. I've read their posts and I've tried to prove them wrong. It's not very easy to do, especially the part about Amazon being right and legacy publishing missing that proverbial boat.

I know for a fact that the big six publishers had digital technology in the late 1990's. They knew it was coming and yet they dismissed it completely. I also heard more than one person in traditional publishing professional laugh at digital books. They were wrong. Time has proven this. So while I don't like the approach with Konrath and Eisler, I can't fault them for one, telling the truth, and two, for being open about the truth.

And I have read nothing they've said that could hurt a new author. I can't say the same thing about traditional publishing web sites and blogs. Many are still dead silent when it comes to e-books. Others have shut down completely because they have nothing left to say and they are being challenged for the first time.

The post Konrath wrote about the AAR sending a letter regarding the DOJ settlement was rich with truth...and common sense. Again, they are obnoxious. But they are telling the truth and no one else is.

Maya said, on 5/22/2012 5:42:00 PM

"Chip on one's shoulder" is pretty vague. I am going to name a name: Konrath. He's outspoken against traditional publishing, but he's also made some EXCELLENT points. Let's face it, if you chose to go self-pub there are reasons. And one of the reasons may be all of the flaws in the traditional publishing path. If you think there aren't any flaws: you are blind and you need to read Konrath's blog.

For example: Konrath recently had an ex-Harlequin author show how she had been tricked into getting only a 2% royalty rate. Worse, agent Scott Eagan than said it was her own fault for signing the contract. Nevermind that it's an AGENT'S job to make sure their client understands the weird legalese in a contract. To trivialize that aspect, to make it sound like understanding a contract is easy, is so ridiculous and disingenuous. However, agents don't have to take a bar exam to become a literary agent. So most authors going the traditional publishing route have to risk having an incompetent agent and a horrible contract. Meanwhile, Amazon offers indie publishers offer a very easy to read 70%/30% split with no gotchas. So seriously, do you really think indie authors should just shut up and NOT criticize traditional publishing just because there is a chance you might go that route later? I don't think so. I can only *HOPE* that these self-publish authors continue to educate writers and that one day it might actually cause *gasp* the PUBLISHERS to make a change. By offering standardized, ethical contracts. Because until then, I really do want to hear why successful authors have made the switch to self-pub.

Maya said, on 5/22/2012 6:00:00 PM

I'm sorry if I got carried away (above) but it's because there are reasons to be up in arms and some of the blogs have really shined a light to them.

Indiana Jim said, on 5/22/2012 7:15:00 PM

Putting Konrath and Eisler on a "do not buy" list because they're outspoken about the publishing cartel is certainly your prerogative, but frankly they are KILLING it independently, and they do the math. You can argue with they're delivery, but not their facts. Everyone on the other side frames their arguments in esoteric dependency rhetoric and emotion.

The key point in this piece is a good one: you must decide what is best for you, no one else. Just don't whine when it doesn't work out the way you hoped.

Naja Tau said, on 5/22/2012 8:17:00 PM

I'm a big fan of Konrath, but I get tired of arguing too. I think writing attracts chippy personalities, regardless of what subject they latch on to though. There are few other tools that will allow you to brood over your own thoughts and words like writing.

Mira said, on 5/22/2012 8:28:00 PM

I completely agree that you could have wonderful results going indie, Nathan!

So, thanks for saying you the problem is more about the tone than the disagreement.

I agree tone is a problem I wish some people would be more careful, they can alienate the people they are reaching out to - as you said. I wish Konrath, for example, would re-consider. He's brilliant, but he's setting an example of tone and people are following it. It's unfortunate, because it can pit author against authors, which is frankly only going to strengthen the industry he fights against. But I am certainly glad he's fighting for authors, regardless.

I also wonder if some of the tone issues are growing pains, as people work out this new landscape.

So, I do disagree with you on an important point here, though, Nathan. It's always alittle tough for me to disagree on your blog. Please know that my disagreement doesn't mean any lack of respect for you or your blog.

So, here's my disagreement. I don't think people are having trouble with tone alone. I think it's the content. I'll give an example. I'm going to say everything I believe about traditional publishing in as neutral a tone as possible. But I wonder if it would still label me as having a chip on my shoulder.


This is what I've learned by listening to authors who have worked for traditional publishers. To the best of my knowledge, the following are TRUE:

Publisher exploit authors. They steal money from authors (both literally and figuratively). They have contracts with hidden clauses that steal money and rights from authors. They treat authors as if they were interchangable, unimportant entities. They infantalize authors. They steal e-book rights. They steal backlist rights. They make decisions about authors' books that hurt the authors' ability to make sales, and undermine the authors ability to reach the right audience. They treat the author badly by ignoring their opinion and forcing them to work to deadlines, while they themselves have few deadlines. They put authors into bookstores with no support, and then drop them from their list if the author doesn't make money, something that killed careers in the past. They (allegedly) colluded to fix prices that resulted in less money for authors. They have extremely simliar contracts and rate structures and fit the definition of a cartel.

So, what do you think? I think my tone on this comment was okay, although some words like 'steal' adn 'exploit' were alittle perjorative, but it was impossible to make my point without using those words.

If what I said above got reactions, its because it was breaking taboos. Long standing taboos in the publishing culture, taboos against an author criticizing publishers. And whenever taboos are broken, people get angry and defenders rise up to reinforce the taboos because it feels safer (even though it may not really be safer). Which makes everyone angry, and camps form, people get ostracized and targeted and everyone gets all upset.

It's called social change.

There's a saying by Arthur Schopenhauer.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident".

Helen W. Mallon said, on 5/22/2012 8:35:00 PM

!!!!

It's really helpful to stand outside and watch the feathers fly.

Balance. That's what we need. Thanks.

Terin Tashi Miller said, on 5/22/2012 9:10:00 PM

Nathan:

I had a big long rant I've decided not to write.

You're right. But so is Mira.

See? No chip.

But would this discussion even merit attention if traditional publishers weren't the ones with the defensive attitude?

That said, like someone else was saying, I still try the traditional route with books I think might interest a publisher. Like a biography of my cousin, "Stinky," who lives on the Jersey Shore...

Nathan Bransford said, on 5/22/2012 9:19:00 PM

mira-

I actually disagree on substance more than tone. Sure, in the worst of worst case scenarios some authors have been subjected to what you've described. But by and large there's a reason authors have in the past and still continue to choose traditional publishers - they do better for the author than they can on that own.

Now, maybe that calculus is changing for some writers. Every situation is different. But the idea that there is some mass exploitation happening and that authors are being conscripted into some traditional publishing cabal and self-publishing is a blissful relief from all that... I disagree.

I couldn't have done Jacob Wonderbar on my own. I like my publisher. Like any author I have my frustrations with the process, but I also recognize that I'm way better off having had a traditional than without. I may well choose to go on my own for future projects, but it's all about what's best for an individual project. Again, I couldn't have done Jacob Wonderbar on my own.

Sure - publishers don't always act in an authors' best interest. Sometimes there are disagreements. Sometimes publishers are wrong. But I trust all authors to decide what's best for their own career, whether that's traditional publishing or self-publishing.

Sheila Cull said, on 5/22/2012 9:25:00 PM

I'm going to quote you. This is it, in a nutshell. Self-Publishing is a circle, I think a waste of time.

Here it is -

Nathan Bransford said, "Most readers, by and large, don't care a whit who publishes you. They haven't heard of 90% of the imprints out there anyway. They're not going to read you because you wear your self-publishing badge with excessive pride. They just want to know if your book is good."

Sheila Cull said, on 5/22/2012 9:34:00 PM

I'm sorry it repeated. It's a long story.

Nathan, anybody, would it be considerate for me to take responsibility and "clean that up" by deleting those? Who else will, right?

Sheila

Sheila Cull said, on 5/22/2012 9:45:00 PM

I'M SAYING THAT WHAT YOU WROTE, YOU WROTE SO WELL THAT YOU GOT TO SAY IT IN A NUTSHELL, (DIDN'T SPLIT SENTENCES INTO GRAPHS).


AND I'M SO, SO, SORRY ABOUT THE ACCIDENTAL REPEATED POSTS. WORK ON THAT, IN PROGRESS.

LUCKY CULL

Sheila Cull said, on 5/22/2012 9:47:00 PM

I'M SAYING THAT WHAT YOU WROTE, YOU WROTE SO WELL THAT YOU GOT TO SAY IT IN A NUTSHELL, (DIDN'T SPLIT SENTENCES INTO GRAPHS).


AND I'M SO, SO, SORRY ABOUT THE ACCIDENTAL REPEATED POSTS. WORK ON THAT, IN PROGRESS.

LUCKY CULL

Mira said, on 5/22/2012 10:42:00 PM

Nathan -

Yes, I understand that we disagree about this. I think we always have, from when I first came to your blog. I think the second time I posted on your blog I was ranting about the exploitation of writers by the publishing industry, and calling for reform, and I've pretty much kept that up since then.

I will say that I am genuinely very happy that you've had a good experience in publishing! That's wonderful, Nathan. I want that for you - I want all your publishing experiences to be wonderful.

I also don't have a problem with anyone else publishing traditionally, as long as they are fully informed. I may secretly think they are nuts, but hey, it's their choice, and I'll support them.

So, in general I know my statements were strong, but that was sort of the point I was making. People are trying to influence the future, and other people may be trying to influence it in the exact opposite way, and there is alot at stake, so feelings are running high.

The question is, at the end of the day, even if we see things very differently, can we still agree to disagree and stay friendly as writers?

I hope so!

C.G.Ayling said, on 5/22/2012 10:58:00 PM

Rejection might not be personal, but it sure feels that way. Nevertheless, I'll gladly take rejection...

Worse than rejection, to me anyway, is indifference - a word I feel better describes many agents.

Other Lisa said, on 5/22/2012 11:05:00 PM

Wow...Mira, I have to strongly disagree with your statement starting with "publishers cheat authors" and going on through that entire paragraph. Yes, there are some bad actors in the traditional publishing world. Yes, as Nathan said, there are frustrations inherent in the process. And yes, books get dropped into the marketplace without sufficient support (one of my major beefs with the industry as it stands). But I have never had a single experience like the ones you state as being pervasive throughout the industry. Not one.

And this doesn't mean that I have anything against self-publishing. I'm curious to try out the hybrid model myself (some traditional, some self-publishing) -- I know authors who are doing that and really enjoying the best of both worlds.

Do I think there are problems in the industry? Absolutely. Pervasive dishonesty and criminal behavior? No.

I work with great people. Ethical, smart, creative and genuine believers in their authors and their books. That's been my experience in traditional publishing, for what it's worth.

Mira said, on 5/22/2012 11:44:00 PM

Lisa, are you with a major publishing house? I thought you were with a smaller publishing house. That's a totally different thing.

I was talking about the Big 6 plus a few other major publishers.

I probably should have made that clear, sorry.

In terms of why I made those statements, I got all of my information reading tons of posts from legacy published authors talking about their experiences. And yes, they report publishers stealing from them, stealing rights and stealing money both literally and figuratively (by figuratively, I mean ridiculously low royalty rates, setting prices on books too high, delaying checks, etc.)

But I didn't mean to imply that bad, unethical, evil people work at publishing houses, even the Big 6. I'm sure terrific people work there. I'm talking about the place they work for, the upper eschelon, not them.

Other Lisa said, on 5/23/2012 12:06:00 AM

Mira, I am with a mid-sized publishing house here in the States (it's gotten a little too big to be called small any more) and one of the Big Six in the UK.

Here's the thing: I talk to a lot of traditionally published authors. We trade stories and experiences. There's a lot of bitching, like you'd expect. There is also a lot of praise. What there isn't, is a high incidence of reporting thievery and/or blatant dishonesty.

I do know of a few houses where really hinky things went on that I think fit the characterization you made of publishing as a whole. All three of them are largely romance publishers, and none of them are actually Big Six (I don't think).

I could go through my list of how I think traditional publishing could and should improve (as a side note: I really dislike the term "legacy" publishing. It's use is too often indicative of an agenda, which is what we're trying to avoid here).

If you asked most authors, I think you'd hear a lot about more consistent marketing support and higher eBook royalties. You'd hear about not overpaying for titles at the expense of just about every other book in the house.

My US publisher is an actual independent publisher (don't get me started on the use of "indie"--if I self-publish, I will call it "self-published"), and I think their business model is really smart, and that Big Six houses could learn from it.

The biggest problem with the Big Six, IMO, is the corporate structure they are a part of and how that encourages short term thinking, but I don't want to get too off-topic here, and that's a very tough problem to untangle, in any case.

I just think that generalizing about pervasive illegal business practices and exploitation is a mistake, and it doesn't fit the experiences I've had in publishing.

FWIW, my Big Six UK publisher asked me for feedback on their cover concepts. They asked me if I was willing to be involved in advertising brainstorming and the like. They've been a delight. I have no idea if my stuff will sell well enough for them to be able to make the business decision to continue working with me, but I can't complain about the experience.

Mira said, on 5/23/2012 12:27:00 AM

Lisa, I'm heading off to bed, so I'll respond more fully tomorrow. I'm glad we do agree about the lack of support, etc. :) but here's a quick point. The Department of Justice and 36 (?) States sued the Big 5 for illegal activity just last month. Big huge lawsuit. I believe for criminal illegal activity. And yes, I'm talking about other types of illegal activity here, but just wanted to mention that.

And I've heard some nice things about UK publishers although not enough to have an opinion.

Other Lisa said, on 5/23/2012 12:40:00 AM

Mira, I do know about the DoJ lawsuit. I'll just say there are arguments to be made on both sides, and leave it at that.

Trisha said, on 5/23/2012 12:57:00 AM

Nobody likes a loudmouthed jerk. Well, I don't anyway ;)

Marilyn Peake said, on 5/23/2012 2:43:00 AM

aeThe Department of Justice has brought a lawsuit against five of the Big Six publishers, publishing giant Rupert Murdoch is in serious legal trouble for a phone-hacking scandal and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has filed for bankruptcy while Amazon has struck a deal with Waterstones to sell Kindles and is in the process of opening their own bookstores. People, and not just authors, are talking about these issues, not because they're envious, but because these are important issues, almost as important as what is going on with Wall Street and mega-corporations. I find it interesting thspeak uas the big publishing houses are in serious trouble both legally and financially, blog posts are chastising self-published authors to mind their manners. If writers don't speak up, who will?

Marilyn Peake said, on 5/23/2012 2:53:00 AM

Well, that may just be the last time I try posting a comment from my tablet. My last comment was apparently turned partially into gibberish when I tapped the screen. I will re-post it here from my computer...

The Department of Justice has brought a lawsuit against five of the Big Six publishers, publishing giant Rupert Murdoch is in serious legal trouble for a phone-hacking scandal and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has filed for bankruptcy while Amazon has struck a deal with Waterstones to sell Kindles and is in the process of opening their own bookstores. People, and not just authors, are talking about these issues, not because they're envious, but because these are important issues, almost as important as what is going on with Wall Street and mega-corporations. I find it interesting that just as the big publishing houses are in serious trouble both legally and financially, blog posts are chastising self-published authors to mind their manners. If writers don't speak up, who will?

Marilyn Peake said, on 5/23/2012 3:12:00 AM

OtherLisa said:

"Do I think there are problems in the industry? Absolutely. Pervasive dishonesty and criminal behavior? No."

That's not what's in the news. I think one of the main problems is that traditionally published authors only know the really nice people who work really, really hard day in and day out at the bottom rungs of the mega-publishing-corporations. There are very nice people working in all the bottom rungs of all types of corporations and in Wall Street and insurance companies. That doesn't mean there isn't pervasive dishonesty and criminal behavior. That's for the courts to decide, as they have access to far greater evidence than any worker bee does.

online diploma said, on 5/23/2012 4:27:00 AM

This is my first time i visit here. I found so many entertaining stuff in your blog, especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here! Keep up the good work.

Nikole Hahn said, on 5/23/2012 4:59:00 AM

Agree. I am so tired of reading and hearing that chip on the shoulder. My goal is traditional publishing, but I know many nice self-pubs who don't have a chip on their shoulder, but I also have witnessed the ones that do. It doesn't make me want to get to know them at writers groups or conferences; I won't visit those blogs or read their books. I won't review their books. That's how much of a turn off it is for me. I like people. I just don't like artsy people who think every word is too holy to edit. ;o)

Rebecca Jones said, on 5/23/2012 5:42:00 AM

I'm firmly 'on the fence' with this one. If I've got an excellent story- I'm confident that it's got legs, and I've shown it to others and they generally feel the same way, my first step will always be to make sure that the workmanship is good. When I've got a cracking story, well told, I'll send it via appropriate 'traditional' routes. If I'm rejected, I can either decide that they were right and live with it, or I can entertain the idea that, perhaps, on this occasion, the experts (I use the word without any sarcasm or irony whatsoever) called it wrong.

I'm not against self-publishing. In fact, I think it's perfectly healthy to have mechanisms which exist so that writers can challenge what can seem a very autocratic separation of 'x is good, y is bad, x will sell, y won't' etc. However, I do agree that it is often used as a way of getting work out there when it just isn't ready. And a writer simply MUST learn to turn rejection into bread and water- just taking it personally and allowing that feedback to go to waste is not making anyone a better writer.

But what can traditional publishers take away from the increased popularity of self-publishing? I don't want to sound like one of the 'chippies' you refer to (I really do believe I am a professional, able to face up to the quality of my work with maturity), but perhaps traditional publishers should be using this as an opportunity to learn a little more about THEIR processes and ways of working. No-one expects them to sign onto work which is woeful, badly written and harder to sell than an England strip to a Glaswegian, but in order to retain their position as The Voice of what is 'good' and what is 'bad', I think they should make it their business to see this issue as a two-way street, rather than just some rejected, 'chippy' writers going off in a teenage-style strop and self-publishing because the establishment said no.

I would always try the traditional route first, but I would certainly go to self-publishing if I was that convinced that I had something worthwhile. I wouldn't consider that an arrogant action, and I would hope that any perspective readers or future publishers would be open-minded enough to recognise that I simply took advantage of the fact that there are now more 'ways to the Lord' than through publishing houses. It would never be a 'step one' for me, though.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I've ever encountered any of the arrogance that some people have obviously encountered around self-publishing- I will assume I've either been very lucky or very ignorant! In fact, most of the people I know who've chosen the self-publishing route have the advantage of sufficient previous rejection to inform their decision and to create a more discerning writer and editor- and perhaps even more so than some writers who have found publication with traditional publishers with marginally less trouble.

Thanks for an honest and insightful blog, Nathan!

Sommer Leigh said, on 5/23/2012 6:37:00 AM

I very much agree with this post. Some of the most unpleasant people I've met online are ones who railed violently against traditional publishing like traditional publishing had come to their house personally and kicked their puppy. I'm done with a conversation as soon as someone starts demonizing those evil agents or worse, how gullible and naive the people are signing contracts with them. It makes me a little nuts when writers are belittled for wanting to go the traditional route, as if we do it only because we seek approval and a pat on the head, not because we don't have the personality or time to successfully pursue self publishing.

I don't think this rant is an all or nothing deal - it's not all self publishing authors are jerks who need to chill out and it's not all traditional published authors look down on self published authors from their ivory tower.

I think we're all playing the same game, on the same team, no matter who sponsors us. We all still deserve respect and honest discussion and an honest desire to enact change is not the same thing as setting a publishing house on fire and declaring, "I WIN. YOU SUCK."

Mira said, on 5/23/2012 7:17:00 AM

Marilyn said: "If writers don't speak up, who will?"

Thanks! I couldn't agree more. I appreciate the information you added!

Lisa - Sorry to drop the ball last night, I was so tired, I'm not sure my last post even made sense.

First, I'm really happy that you're happy with your publishing experiences. And I love hearing you may go hybrid. Good luck! :)

I brought up the DOJ lawsuit (I checked and it's 31 States, not 36) because anti-trust activities is a criminal offense under Federal law which carries a penalty of up to three years in prision and/or up to 10 million dollars in damages, not counting what the States may sue for.

For a summary and an actual copy of the complaint, as well as a look at the evidence that publishers did do this, you can go here: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/05/2012/17-more-states-sue-apple-and-major-publishers-for-price-fixing/

In terms of what I said about illegal action and exploitation, I mentioned in my intial comment my information was based on what I've read on the web. So, it may be that you and I are hearing different things because your friends may have different experiences.

It's always possible I'm wrong, but I can't really back down or change my mind here, because I didn't experience this personally (I'm not published). It's not hard data, it's anecdotal.

I don't know how pervasive it is, but I've read several posts about each one of these problems. And I also don't think it's an adequate defense of publishers to say that this type of thing only happens in unusual cases. It should never happen.

Since both you and Nathan questioned the accuracy of what I said, I'll give alittle more detail of what I heard. Where I got this: I read this in comments on blogs like Konrath, the Passive Guy, and other indie writer blogs. It makes sense I would find those stories there, since these writers are usually pretty unhappy with what they've experienced and would look for a safe place to talk about it.

So, details (I'll limit this to the criminal activities ones):

Publishers steal money from writers: I've read about situations where publishers play with the return policy, withholding the "reserve against returns" thereby keeping money that should have been returned to the author.

Publishers steal e-book rights: I've read of many instances where publishers have retroactively grabbed e-book rights for books that were published prior to the e-book technology. Recently a writer wrote that her publisher sent her a letter congratulating her for joining their e-book program. She never negotiated this.

Publishers steal backlist rights: I've read several accounts where publishers try to hold onto backlists, sometimes resulting in law suits that the writer wins (the ones I've read about). I've also heard about publishers simply delaying the return of rights for huge chunks of time, at least a year or more. This withholds potential income from the author.

They have contracts with hidden clauses: I was talking about Harlequin here. I'll admit I have not heard this about the Big Six, although I do hear their contracts are completely unfair to the writer.

Btw, Konrath today takes on the problems in writer contracts: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/

Problem with his tone or not, if you are a writer, you'd be smart to read his blog. His information is extremely important.

Authors signed these contracts in the past and worked with the Big Six because they really had no choice. They do now. And it is very important that authors have all the information so they can make informed choices. Writers need to be informed!!!!

So, I hope that addressed what you were saying, Lisa!

Anonymous said, on 5/23/2012 7:33:00 AM

More likely is the corporate publishing house which has a chip on the shoulder, not authors.

But the groveling sycophants on this blog who bring "kiss ass" to new altitudes will hate my comment.

Truth is: Nathan's views about self-published authors are irrelevant. Who is he to chastise independent authors?

Yeah, he's all for self publishing ...yeah right, give me a break.

He whines about one's chip on the shoulder when he has a log on his own, as evidenced by this condescending post.

Now go back to publishing corporate crap like "Marley and Me" and "Eat, Pray, Love" and leave independent authors alone.

Shevi said, on 5/23/2012 8:04:00 AM

Anon from 7:33AM, Nathan's post doesn't chastise indie authors, nor is it condescending. He's giving helpful advice, and apparently you know it's helpful. Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted the above rant anonymously.

This is exactly what Nathan was blogging about, that you should be careful what image you project online.

Heck, it doesn't matter if you're indie published or not or even if you're a writer.

I was recently telling my daughter that a future employer might some day look her up on Google. Does she want that employer to see she made rants like yours above? I don't think so.

We'd all be smart to project the right image online, one that might not turn around and bite us in the ass somewhere down the line.

So if you really believed that Nathan is wrong and writers should write any kind of nonsense online without any care as to how it might affect their careers later on, you would have put your name to your words. The fact that you didn't shows you know Nathan is right.

stacy said, on 5/23/2012 8:21:00 AM

I have mixed feelings about all of this. While I love that self-publishing offers another route for authors in the same way that I love how Kickstarter allows filmmakers and other artists to get funding and eliminate the middleman, I would probably still go with traditional publishing, just like I would probably pitch to Hollywood rather than make an independent film.

Really, I think it boils down to what advantages you want and what disadvantages you're willing to live with.

Nathan Bransford said, on 5/23/2012 8:30:00 AM

mira-

Of course there are people who have had bad experiences, and of course people should know what they sign. I still disagree with what you're saying.

Reserve against returns are a customary practice, and they are accounted for on royalty statements. Yes, sometimes disreputable publishers take advantage of this. By and large this system works.

The standard publishing clauses Konrath tackles are standard. A publisher is investing in publishing your book in exchange for certain rights. Publishers are investing money and risk while there is no risk to you. There's a tradeoff that happens there.

Sometimes rights situations are ambiguous and yes, sometimes publishers make rights grabs in those situations. That's why it's important for authors to have effective representation. It's ultimately an authors' responsibility to fight for their own rights. Contracts are legal documents and if an author is in the right they will prevail. Authors are responsible for knowing what they sign. Those aren't criminal activities.

As for the DOJ lawsuit, while I disagreed with the agency model, most agents and the Authors' Guild supported the publishers' actions. That's evidence that publishers are trying to stick it to authors? How?

Just because some bad things happen to some people doesn't mean the entire enterprise is flawed. Some people get hit by cars, it doesn't mean you shouldn't enter a crosswalk.

Look, I have my frustrations with publishers and I've expressed them on this blog. But I'm really surprised at your beliefs. Authors do now have a choice and some are still choosing traditional publishing. Yeah, Kornath has done well self-publishing, but let's keep that in perspective - even the very top self-published authors aren't anywhere approaching the ballpark of the Pattersons, Kings, Meyers, Collinses of the world. Are those authors just hoodwinked too?

Maya said, on 5/23/2012 8:56:00 AM

Wow, such heated debate.

I think Mira goes a little far in using the phrase "publishers steal" in the sense they do this all the time. There are cases where their contracts are unfair but there are also cases where they are fair.

However, I have to disagree when Nathan says, ""But I trust all authors to decide what's best for their own career, whether that's traditional publishing or self-publishing."

Authors are not contract lawyers and newbie authors especially are not familiar with publishing contract lingo. Therefore, they rely heavily on agents to get them a fair deal. Many agents fail to do so. Trivializing the complexity of contracts is completely one-sided (for publishers) in my opinion. Standardized contracts or better information on what those clauses mean are vital. Konrath is spreading that important information, so whether you like his tone or not, he is doing writers a great service.

Maya said, on 5/23/2012 9:07:00 AM

Another thought: just because something is "standard" does not mean it is fair. Let's take the example of reversion of rights. In the past, it worked out because stores would not continue to print books that weren't selling well. Now with ebooks, authors might never get their rights back for out of print books. So what was standard is no longer fair because of a loophole.

Nathan Bransford said, on 5/23/2012 9:16:00 AM

Maya-

But ultimately it's up to authors to understand what they're signing and what's customary, whether they have an agent or not. I really truly believe authors must take responsibility for their own careers and that includes finding out what's customary and what's not, agent or no. I totally agree it's important to spread information about what contract clauses mean.

Mira said, on 5/23/2012 12:22:00 PM

Nathan - sorry for the delay in my response. Work is crazy today.

Well, here's what I think I see in reading your response. We somewhat agree about the data and disagree about the conclusion. I think that's right, please let me know if doesn't fit for you.

Examples where I think we agree:

You say disreputable publishers can take advantage of returns. That publishers can make rights grabs in some situations. You acknowledge the DOJ lawsuit.

But your conclusion is: "Just because some bad things happen doesn't mean the system is entire enterprise is flawed."

Okay, fair enough. This is where we disagree.

You support the current system and think it works overall, but might like to make some changes.

I do not support the current system and think it is broken, and would like a major overhaul.

Where we do agree is that people can make the best decisions for themselves and it's very important they be given all of the relevant information in order to do so.

You know, part of the issue with the current debate is that people really do sincerely see things differently.

So, that's how I would sum our argument.

(I want to add something. I debated going line by line with you about the content, but....well, I still will, if you want. I don't want you to feel as though I'm dodging the issues, I just wasn't sure it would go anywhere other than making us mad at each other, and I don't want that. Sorry it's probably driving you nuts I keep making this personal, but it's hard for me to be at odds with you, it just is, so there you go).

stacy said, on 5/23/2012 12:24:00 PM

Totally agree about the tone, Nathan. Authors these days sell themselves as much as they sell their books. So much of that is about radiating goodwill and being the kind of person people want to buy from. I know there are writers I have no interest in reading because what I've seen of their personalities turns me off. I don't much care whether they're published by one of the Big Six or self-published.

Maya said, on 5/23/2012 1:31:00 PM

Personally, I think if we can't rely on agents to negotiate good contracts and point out gotchas in the legalese, there is a lot less reason to have one. I for one have a whole new list of questions I plan to ask an agent before signing with one. And yes, self-publishing is the alternative all authors have in their back pocket. If a writer brings these things up when an agent wants to represent them, does that mean the writer has "a chip on her shoulder"?

Suzanne Anderson said, on 5/23/2012 3:15:00 PM

Hi Nathan,

I've had exactly the opposite experience....I've met traditionally published authors who act as if THEY have a chip on their shoulder, or look down on, those of us who've indie-published. I met one soon to be published author who has a blog where she regularly interviews fellow authors....but has a standing policy not to do interviews with indie-authors.

I'm getting my second book ready for publication and absolutely love the self-publishing experience. Yes, it may be more difficult than having a publishing house behind me, but I also think it also presents wonderful opportunities.

Instead of waiting for an agent to pick my book, and then in turn sell it to a publishing house, and to see if they choose to put marketing muscle behind it or just let it linger, I get to publish my book as soon as it's ready.

Yes I am solely responsible for the marketing but guess what? my local bookstore is now carrying my first book! How awesome is that?!

rebecca koo said, on 5/23/2012 5:01:00 PM

Great post! Thank you so much. Well said without being a rant and with a great balance which makes your points all the more digestible! As a beginner muddling through this changing industry, I found this incredibly helpful.

Other Lisa said, on 5/23/2012 6:02:00 PM

Er, Take 2!


Look, I probably rail on about the evils of corporate oligarchy as much as anyone out there. More, even!

But telling me that I am naive, that I only deal with nice people and not the evil-doers at the top who are exploiting authors, I'm not sure how to respond other than to say, I am a person with some actual experience inside this system. Maybe that should count for something? And if my experiences aren't relevant, how about Nathan's? Or the many other authors with whom I've discussed the business?

As Nathan said, the Authors Guild, that organization dedicated to exploiting authors everywhere, came out against the DoJ lawsuit. There are some good reasons for that.

I'll also echo what Nathan said here: authors need to understand their business, the contracts they sign and the implications for their careers. That won't protect you against out and out malfeasance, but it will help you make better decisions for your particular circumstances.

JDuncan said, on 5/23/2012 10:15:00 PM

Boy, wish I'd read through this sooner. This debate is always so interesting and at times entertaining.

I'm still one of those who sees pros and cons on both sides of this fence. That may and probably will change over the course of time as the industry works through all of this turmoil.

Personally, I like being able to turn over my book to professionals who know what they're doing with regard to publishing, marketing, and distributing my work. When it works well (for some it does and others it does not) I believe traditional publishing is a good thing. You are being asked to sacrifice of lot of the income for services rendered. Is it too much to ask? Yeah, I'd say it probably is. Authors deserve fairer slice of the pie. What is actually fair is open to debate, but I'd say it's more than the sub-10% we get now.

Are these disadvantageous agreements stealing? I suppose that might be semantics, but steeping contracts in legalese such that it's difficult to decipher some elements unless you hire a lawyer is nice way to obfuscate the truth of the terms of the contract. It's certainly not illegal, and one can say that it is the problem of the author and/or agent to decipher the contractual terms so that one understands exactly what one is getting into, which is true as far as that goes, but you can bet that publishers had lawyers working on their side to blur the lines of understanding as it were.

Why publishers can't have an attachment to contracts that puts all of the terms in plain english is beyond me. Transparency is a good thing, and legal contracts are anything but.

That said, it's not a secret that authors don't get much of a return. We've worked in an industry that until the past few years left us no option. True, we could say no, but that meant not publishing. We now have another option, and it's going to behoove publishers to step up to the plate a bit here or the pool of talent is going to shift to self-publishing.

The biggest thing pubs have going for them is store distribution, promo, and getting that manuscript into book form. They don't always do this well, but when they do it's worth a lot. Doing it on your own takes a lot of work, time, and investment to do well. To many writers think they have what it takes to do it right and they don't. Personally, I can't afford to do what I would want to do. Not yet. When and if I can, I'll probably give it a go.

Meanwhile, the "chippers" as it were, while kind of annoying, are providing the benefit of making this argument loud enough for a lot of people to hear. This is a good thing. It needs to be heard. We don't need to be pointing fingers at writers who don't want to leave tradtional or laughing at those who try to self publish. We need to continue to positively voice the fact that we deserve fair compensation. Both publishing avenues are worthwhile in their own way, both have drawbacks, but when it comes to fairness, it's hard to argue the fact that it isn't an issue when you're doing it all yourself. This is appealing to a lot of people, myself included.

Mira said, on 5/23/2012 10:27:00 PM

Lisa re. the Author's guild, from what I see in comments on the web, the membership has mixed reactions to their President's letter coming out against the DOJ suit.

In addition, self publishers are not eligible for membership in the Guild. Nor are unpublished writers, or many small press published writers. The Authors guild does not represent those writers nor can it be said to speak for them.

Nevertheless, I do not think the Author's guild letter should be defended. The actions the publishers (allegedly) took were not only illegal, but criminal. There is no defense for that. It was illegal and criminal. If they needed to do something, they really could have tried something legal. Sorry if I sound snippy here, but really. If they felt illegal actions were the absolutely only option, maybe they should have called the DOJ and gotten permission to collude and price fix before they did it.

Nathan, I'm sorry and I want to apologize to you. It was unfair of me to come onto your blog, make extremely strong statements and then wimp out and refuse to debate you and try to make it personal. Sorry.

So....I'm going to pick up the gauntlet and talk about a couple of your points.

First, I believe agents are accountable to the author to protect them in contracts because that's why they are hired, and why they take money from the author. It's explicit in their business relationship. For example, someone wouldn't hire a lawyer, and then be expected to know the law anyway. That's what experts are for.


Second, in terms of bestsellers, I could be wrong here, but I actually think Amazon may be just as well positioned, if not better positioned, to find the next huge bestseller. Partly because their marketing machine and their marketing access is enormous and far reaching. But also because the next best selling author might just take the indie publishing route, or choose to publish with them, since they are now taking on the role of a publisher, as well. So, just a thought.

Mira said, on 5/23/2012 11:46:00 PM

Deleted my last comment. I've said enough on this thread.

Thanks for giving a space for debate around difficult topics, Nathan.

Shevi said, on 5/24/2012 5:18:00 AM

It's a shame Mira deleted her previous comment, because I thought this was relevant to the conversation: "In addition, self publishers are not eligible for membership in the [Authors] Guild. Nor are unpublished writers, or many small press published writers."

If every member of the Authors Guild has worked tirelessly to get published and is indebted to his or her publisher, how could the members of the Authors Guild do anything but support their publishers, right or wrong? How many people would support the other side in a lawsuit against the company they work for? Not many, which makes the Authors Guild support of the big six and Apple against Amazon irrelevant. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Shevi said, on 5/24/2012 5:23:00 AM

I thought some people here might be interested in my side-by-side comparison of traditional versus indie publishing. Both options have their advantages and disadvantages: http://shevi.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-know-my-friends-mean-well-when-they.html

Ellen said, on 5/24/2012 6:47:00 AM

Once again you've put words to something many of us have noticed without fully realizing it. Your acuteness is sorely needed as we attempt to navigate the insanity of this rapidly changing field.

Nathan Bransford said, on 5/24/2012 7:50:00 AM

shevi-

I think it's definitely open for debate whether the Authors Guild should open its doors, but published authors were also the only ones with a dog in that particular fight. I do think they were acting according to their view of authors' interest.

Shevi said, on 5/24/2012 9:20:00 AM

I buy a lot of books. I'd like to pay less for them. Amazon wants to charge me less for them, while at the same time giving publishers exactly the same profit. That's good for me, because, as I said, I'd rather pay less for books. Lower prices make me more inclined to buy lots of them. Higher prices make me disinclined to buy them at all.

It's true that I don't have a dog in this race (what's with the cliches?) as an indie author, because either way I still make a 70% royalty rate on the books I sell through Amazon, the Apple iBookstore, BN, Google Play, and pretty much everywhere else I sell e-books. Even though Google Play sells my books for less than anyone else, they still give me the exact same 70% of the retail price I set. But I do have a dog in this race as a consumer who buys a lot of books.

And I have to admit it does break my heart a little when I see my traditionally published colleagues making only 15% instead of 70% on e-book sales that are paltry because no one wants to buy e-books that cost $15 or more. It broke my heart even more when I learned from Kristine Rusch's blog that they're not even getting that: http://kriswrites.com/2011/04/20/the-business-rusch-royalty-statements-update/

Look at it this way: the only time I have bought a Kindle book from one of the big six publishers was when it was on sale. I have never paid more than $4.99 for any e-book. So when Amazon lowers the prices on their e-books, the big six publishers are making a sale they wouldn't have made otherwise. That's good for everyone, isn't it?

I'm willing to bet that the large majority of Kindle owners are like me. We're loading our Kindles with books that cost less than $9.99--the maximum that Amazon wants to charge--and buying few if any books over that amount. The DOJ verdict wasn't just in favor of Amazon. It was in favor of anyone who buys books or who has a vested interest in consumers buying books.

Nathan Bransford said, on 5/24/2012 9:23:00 AM

Shevi-

Right, but the interests of readers and authors aren't always aligned. Readers want books for free, authors want them to pay for them. That's not quite what we were discussing with the DOJ lawsuit. The idea presented was that the Authors Guild wasn't acting in (traditionally published) authors' interests. I'm not sure I agree with their stance, but I do believe they were acting in good faith on behalf of authors.

Shevi said, on 5/24/2012 9:49:00 AM

Oh, I'm sure they were acting in good faith. I don't agree with their conclusions, but I'm sure they thought what they were doing was in the best interest of the writers they represent.

And while it might be possible that not everything that's good for readers is good for writers, in this particular case, I think our interests are the same. As I pointed out, high prices mean few or no books sold; while reasonable prices mean lots of books sold. That's good for both readers and writers.

And since you brought the issue of free books up, you do know that Neil Gaiman disagrees with you on that, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNl It's a mistaken assumption to think that free books are bad for authors.

Anonymous said, on 5/24/2012 6:14:00 PM

For those citing the Authors Guild as evidence that the DOJ is wrong, it should be noted that many authors now consider the Authors Guild little more than a shill for legacy publishing and want nothing to do with that organization. It used to be that legacy publishers always offered the best deals to writers, so when the Authors Guild reminded writers to avoid small publishing houses, they really did have the best interest of writers in mind. Now, it seems that the Authors Guild is so used to being kept in business by traditional publishers and literary agents and the entire big publishing world, it makes statements that suggest it knows almost nothing at all about the modern world of indie and self publishing. The Authors Guild has recently gone on such extreme rants against self-publishing, it puts any extreme self-publishing author rant to shame.

Rolando Garcia said, on 5/24/2012 7:18:00 PM

If you want to understand why many writers have a "chip on their shoulder" when it comes to this matter read this post: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/05/unconscionability.html

Marilyn Peake said, on 5/24/2012 8:04:00 PM

Shevi - Kristine Kathryn Rusch is awesome!

For anyone who isn't aware of her blog on the modern publishing world and the business side of writing, it's an invaluable place to learn about changes in publishing and to find out about questionable publishing practices as they arise: The Business Rusch. She is one of the rare highly successful authors published by the big publishing houses who dares to speak out against them. She's also broken records in awards she's received, which includes being the only person to ever win a Hugo Award for both editing and writing. Here's her Bio: Biography of Kristine Kathryn Rusch.

Her husband, Dean Wesley Smith, also a successful writer, is much more extreme, perhaps more similar to Joe Konrath in his views. I looked up his website just now to post a link to it, and discovered that his post today is titled: Holy Smokes, Batman. I Agree With Nathan Bransford. HaHaHa. Timely. :)

C. Issy said, on 5/25/2012 6:48:00 PM

This was a great post. I wish I had it a few weeks ago, when I (very gently)tweeted back at a self-pubber whose promotional tweet basically spewed vitriol about trad publishers. I reminded her that, as a reader, that sort of promotion turns me off from ever purchasing a book and that she should tell me why I'd love her book, instead of bashing others. Sadly, I don't think she listened-- but I do hope that she finds this post.

Add a Comment

School is winding down here in Montana.
And when you are a librarian and school is winding down there is A LOT of work.
You have to get all the books turned in.
Then you have to track down the books that kids haven't turned in.
Then you have to cry over the books that you just ordered that got lost during the year.
Then you have to get pissed about the books that you just ordered that got lost during the year (then you have to add a new copy to your fall order).
There is also weeding and tons of shelving and organizing of books after the aides shelf them wrong.
At any rate, it's a busy time of year.
(& I just made one kid cry because I said he couldn't check out any more books--I am glad he wants to read but I want them all turned in!)
So, I am taking the week off of blogging.

But, I am reading some great books I will review soon and I get to participate in the ONE FOR THE MURPHY'S blog tour next week and then summer is coming up and all it happy, happy!

See you next week!