Barry sez: When it comes to Amazon and Hachette and
all that, there’s just too much partisan posturing posing as journalism to
tackle, and most of it Joe and I ignore. But in his latest
New York Times blow job to big publishing, anti-Amazon activist David
Streitfeld jumps so far over the shark that we had to mock his tendentiousness,
which was excessive even by Streitfeldian standards. Joe, what are you
drinking?
Joe sez: I'm drinking a 1921 Dom Perignon at my
summer palazzo on the Canal Grande in Venice.
Oh… wait a second. I don't have a palazzo. Or a 1921 Dom.
So I'm just having Jack Daniels, straight, in my townhouse,
trying to dull my brain enough to deal with what has to be the stupidest, most
biased, poorest excuse for journalism I've ever read… and I've got a poster of Bat Boy from the
Weekly World News hanging in my basement.
Barry sez: Hah. We’re just teasing Preston, who tries
to paint himself as an aw, shucks regular guy but who “summers in this coastal
hamlet… set on 300 acres that have been owned by the Preston family for much of
the last 100 years.” All of which sounds about as blue collar as it gets! Why
would anyone suggest this guy is of and for only the one
percent of authors?
As for my libation tonight, I’m just having a Fat Tire ale.
My second, to ease the pain.
Okay, let’s get this over with…
First, I want to emphasize something we mentioned in yesterday’s
post on James Patterson’s CNN opinion piece. Which is, publishing darlings
like Preston and Patterson get easy access to all the establishment media they
want. Last month’s fawning (and tendentious)
Preston interview was by Vauhini
Vara in The New Yorker; today it’s Streitfeld in the New York Times. And on
Sunday, Preston et al will buy a ton of coverage with an $104,000 ad in the New
York Times, for which the Streitfeld piece reads like a coordinated warm-up.
Joe sez: I'm sure Streitfeld's lips firmly stuck to
Preston's ass for this entire article had nothing to do with Authors United
dropping $104k on that ad. Because, you know, such a high-minded reporter could
never allow a conflict of interest to get in the way of his intrepid search for
the facts.
Barry sez: Oh come on, the New York Times covering a
hundred-thousand dollar ad in the New York Times can only be pure coincidence!
But yeah, drop 100k on an ad, and maybe you can expect a
little additional coverage to get thrown in at no extra charge. Also,
establishment figures are just drawn to establishment figures. It’s like dogs
sniffing each other’s butts -- they can’t help it, it’s what they do. It’s part
of how establishments perpetuate themselves. Why else do “experts” who’ve been
repeatedly, catastrophically wrong continue to get invited onto
all the networks to opine about war and peace?
NYT: Out here in the woods, at the end of not one
but two dirt roads, in a shack equipped with a picture of the Dalai Lama, a
high-speed data line and a copy of Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” Amazon’s
dream of dominating the publishing world has run into some trouble.
Joe sez: I love how right away, Preston -- who as far
as I know has never said a single thing that was correct or defensible on this
issue -- is immediately linked with the Dalai Lama and Thoreau.
Because, you know, a rich, reactionary author protecting his
self-interest is the modern-day equivalent of a reincarnated spiritual leader
who unified Tibet and a transcendental abolitionist.
Wait… I'm getting ahead of the article.
Barry sez: No, I love that opening, too. Of all the
things that must be strewn around Preston’s coastal hamlet garret, those are
the two Streitfeld thoughtfully chose to emphasize. It was beautiful! But where
was Preston's copy of The Teachings of Ghandi?
Also, note the slick way Streitfeld eases in his opinion
that Amazon must be motivated by the desire -- no, more than desire, a dream!
-- of “dominating the publishing world.” Not to make money with lower prices,
greater selection, improved efficiencies… nothing like that. It’s all about
[cue scary music]... Aspirations
of World Domination!
This is another one we wrote about yesterday,
and as we said there, it’s practically a staple of the Amazon Derangement
Syndrome crowd. For people like Streitfeld, that Amazon might, like other
companies, be motivated by business reasons and not some cartoonish Dr. Evil
imperative of World Domination isn’t conceivable. Certainly the possibility is
never entertained; Amazon is Evil And Wants To Take Over the World is just a
constant, background, unexamined axiom, one of those things Streitfeld simply
knows and which therefore require no evidence.
NYT: Douglas Preston, who summers in this coastal
hamlet, is a best-selling writer — or was, until Amazon decided to discourage
readers from buying books from his publisher, Hachette, as a way of pressuring
it into giving Amazon a better deal on e-books. So he wrote an open letter to
his readers asking them to contact Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive,
demanding that Amazon stop using writers as hostages in its negotiations.
The letter, composed in the shack, spread through the
literary community. As of earlier this week 909 writers had signed on,
including household names like John Grisham and Stephen King. It is scheduled
to run as a full-page ad in The New York Times this Sunday.
Joe sez: The letter was also thoroughly fisked
by me and Barry
over a month ago.
Preston never responded. Nor did he respond to the many other
times we took him to task.
Because we all know that the one thing you should never do,
when you're right, is defend your position.
But then, when did Henry David Thoreau ever engage in open
debate? You know, other than that time he gave those public lectures after
being arrested for not paying his poll tax because that money financed slavery.
What was the name of his collected speeches?
Oh, yeah. Civil Disobedience.
It's like Thoreau has been reincarnated, and Preston is carrying on his
unselfish message of social change. The people's champion, here to serve the
needs of the many via tremendous courage and self-sacrifice.
I mean, look at all he has to lose by bad-mouthing his own
publisher? Hachette could easily retaliate by…
Oops. Forgot. He's not bad-mouthing Hachette, even though they've
been stalling in negotiations with Amazon since January (way to report,
Streitfeld!) because they currently have no contract with Amazon (glad you
mentioned that as well, Streitfeld!) and want to keep ebook prices high (that's
the trifecta of ignoring important facts surrounding this story, Streitfeld!
Congrats!).
Barry sez: We might call such journalistic
magnificence… “Streitfeldian!”
Joe sez: Of course Doug isn't bad-mouthing Hachette
-- Hachette is his publisher, and bad-mouthing them would be risky.
Barry sez: Yes, Preston knows he can do or say
anything, and Amazon won't retaliate. Unlike his forebear Thoreau, he's taking
zero risk.
Joe sez: It's all so reminiscent of Walden, I think
Thoreau has a potential plagiarism suit.
NYT: Amazon, unsettled by the actions of a group
that used to be among its biggest fans, is responding by attacking Mr. Preston,
calling the 58-year-old thriller writer “entitled”
and “an opportunist,” while simultaneously trying to woo him and his
fellow dissenters into silence.
Barry sez: Credit where due: Preston has done a nice
job of propagating that “woo him into silence” meme. But what I always wonder
is this. Why is it a bad thing that Amazon, which has no direct relationship
with Preston, has reached out to him? And why is it a good thing -- how can Preston
be proud -- that he’s “not
even in contact” with his own publisher on this matter? Wouldn’t he like to
find out from his own publisher what this dispute is about (he
admits he doesn’t even know himself)? Why doesn’t Streitfeld think to even
ask about any of this?
Either Streitfeld is stunningly incurious for a reporter… or something else is going on.
Anyway, I don’t know why anyone would call Preston entitled.
Everyone knows that’s
only readers. And it’s not as though Preston worries, in this very article,
“What if Amazon says, ‘Why should we sell Doug Preston’s books? He’s a thorn in
our sides.’ Guess what? All this [the coastal hamlet and spacious and splendid
house, presumably] goes away.” Because, absolutely, Douglas Preston has a right
to have his wares stocked by all retailers, no matter what. Don’t we all?
What’s entitled about that?
Joe sez: And "wooed into silence." Amazon,
in a self-serving display guaranteed to provoke disgust, tried to bribe Preston
into shutting up by offering to help the authors Preston said were being
harmed.
Way to misrepresent, Streitfeld! Amazon reaches out to
Preston to work with him and address his concerns, and they are accused of
trying to silence him. And Preston stupidly, selfishly, and instantly rejects
the proposal, perpetuating the harm that his letter allegedly is trying to
stop.
Preston's monumental ignorance is only overshadowed by Streitfeld's terrible reporting.
NYT: Mr. Preston is unswayed…
Joe sez: Because why let logic, facts, and common
sense get in the way of righteous indignation backed by collective
narcissism and self-entitlement?
NYT: “Jeff Bezos used books as the cutting edge to
help sell everything from computer cables to lawn mowers, and what a good idea
that was,” [Preston] said. “Now Amazon has turned its back on us. Don’t they
value us more than that? Don’t they feel any loyalty? That’s why authors are
mad.”
Joe sez: Amazon has turned its back on you, Doug?
Uh… didn't Amazon contact you directly several times? Didn't
Amazon propose three solutions for compensating authors during these
negotiations with Hachette?
NYT: Amazon has been forced by the controversy to
shed its longtime practice of refusing to comment on anything. Asked about the
writers’ rebellion, it issued a statement that put the focus back on Hachette,
bringing up the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against Hachette and
other publishers in 2012: “First, Hachette was willing to break the law to get
higher e-book prices, and now they’re determined to keep their own authors in
the line of fire in order to achieve that same end. Amazon has made three
separate proposals to take authors out of the middle, all of which Hachette has
quickly dismissed.”
Joe sez: Streitfeld didn't link to Amazon's
statement (why am I not surprised?), didn't mention Amazon's point about
the terribly low royalties Hachette pays its offers, and missed a huge
opportunity to question Preston on the collusion suit Hachette was involved in.
Don't journalists have some sort of rudimentary rulebook or
minimum list of standards they can fall back on to remind them of things that
should be obvious?
I'm floored by the level incompetence here. Is there
something like an Anti-Pulitzer we can nominate Streitfeld for? Some equivalent
of the Razzie Awards for reporters?
Someone needs to send Streitfeld a snorkel, because he's
liable to drown in his own BS… unless the shame of his epic failure to act even
remotely like a journalist kills him first.
NYT: Mr. Preston pointed out it was Amazon that
put the authors in the line of fire in the first place. Russell Grandinetti,
Amazon’s vice president for e-books, has called Mr. Preston twice in recent
weeks, trying to get him to endorse the company’s proposals to settle the
dispute, as well as to pipe down. The most recent proposal would have Amazon
selling Hachette books again, but with Hachette and Amazon giving their
proceeds to charity.
Joe sez: How hard is this to understand? Douglas
Preston doesn't have a contract with Amazon. He has a contract with Hachette.
It is Hachette's responsibility to make deals with retailers so Preston's books
are widely available.
It is not Amazon's responsibility to carry Hachette's books
if the two companies can't decide on terms. Yet Amazon is STILL carrying
Hachette titles, even though their contract expired back in April.
Amazon didn't put any authors in the line of fire. Hachette
did. Believing otherwise is textbook Stockholm
Syndrome.
NYT: No thanks, Mr. Preston said. A proposal that
weakens Hachette by cutting its profits was not in the interests of Hachette’s
authors.
Joe sez: Except for those authors who wanted to take
the deal. Authors who don't have a coastal hamlet.
How many Hachette authors signed Preston's letter? Can
someone with more patience than I have check on that?
Or couldn't Streitfeld have done so? He’s a journalist,
right? That thing is kind of his job. Or couldn’t he at least have an intern
look into it? Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many authors Hachette
publishes vs. how many signed that asinine letter?
NYT: But he took the opportunity to ask Mr.
Grandinetti why Amazon was squeezing the writers in the first place.
His response, according to Mr. Preston: “This was the
only leverage we had.” Amazon declined to comment.
Joe sez: Hmm. Russ Grandinetti said the only way to
compel Hachette to negotiate at all was to remove pre-order buttons and stop
discounting and stocking quantities of Hachette titles.
Consider that for a moment. Amazon has no current contract
with Hachette. Couldn't Amazon have removed all of Hachette's titles? Why
didn't Amazon use that as leverage? Amazon is the bad guy here, right? Wouldn't
a real bad guy do that?
Barry sez: Yeah, I don’t know how you can reasonably
say that Amazon has been other than remarkably patient, using only the most
graduated leverage, and only
in response to Hachette’s ongoing non-responsiveness even after the expiration
of their contract. But then again, I don’t have an entitlement
attitude...
NYT: “It’s like talking to a 5-year-old,” Mr.
Preston said. “ ‘She made me hit her!’ No one is making Amazon do anything.”
Joe sez: No one is making Amazon do anything,
including carrying your titles, Doug. But they still are.
Barry sez: I’ve heard Preston say this in probably a
half dozen different interviews. I know he’s very fond of it, so I wish someone
would explain to him it’s both a nonsequitur and a straw man. Neither Amazon
nor anyone else is claiming that someone “made” Amazon do anything. The
question is, what is a retailer supposed to do when its contract with a
supplier expires… and the supplier refuses to negotiate a new one? We’ve asked
this question of Preston many times
and he’s never
even attempted to answer it.
And shockingly, ace journalist Streitfeld doesn’t think to
ask something similar himself. He just enables the glib “five-year-old” dodge…
and continues with the lovefest.
NYT: No one is making Mr. Preston do anything,
either. He dismisses Amazon’s suggestions that he is a “human shield” for
Hachette, one of the Big 5 publishers in the United States. He and the other
writers say they are acting independently. Most, in any case, are not published
by Hachette.
Joe sez: See my comment above. If most aren't published
by Hachette, could there be some reason more Hachette authors didn't sign that
letter?
How much digging would it have taken to contact a few other
Hachette authors and ask why they didn't sign? Or how they felt about Amazon’s
multiple offers to have Amazon and Hachette compensate them for any losses --
the offers Hachette and Preston keep dismissing out of hand?
Barry sez: In fairness, he was pretty busy taking
notes about the Dalai Lama and Thoreau.
NYT: Mr. Preston is not sure how he has found
himself in charge of a group calling itself Authors United. “I don’t like
fighting,” he said. “I’m a wimp. When the bullies in seventh grade said they
would meet me in the parking lot after school, I made sure I was nowhere near
it.”
Joe sez: But damn anyone who takes away your
hardcover discounts, huh Doug? That's when it's time to make a stand.
NYT: “We feel strongly that no bookseller should
block the sale of books or otherwise prevent or discourage customers from
ordering or receiving the books they want,” the letter states.
Joe sez: For the umpteenth time, Amazon
isn't blocking the sales of books.
Barry sez: And as for “preventing,” it’s almost like
Amazon has the Mystical Power to Stop People from Buying Books Elsewhere. A
power they nefariously wield by directing
Amazon customers to other stores!
Seriously, that Streitfeld enables all this totally
uncritically is just an embarrassment. I want to avert my eyes… but luckily,
I’m on my third beer, and that’s helping.
NYT: Some writers wholeheartedly supported the
letter but were afraid to sign, Mr. Preston said. A few signed it and then
backed out, citing the same reason. The Times ad, which cost $104,000, was paid
for by a handful of the more successful writers.
Barry sez: You almost get the feeling the great, silent majority
of authors are behind this thing, don’t you?
NYT: The Times ad, which cost $104,000, was paid
for by a handful of the more successful writers.
Barry sez: Along with the adoring interviews these
guys receive practically on command, they can also afford to buy whatever media
attention they want. James Patterson made $94
million in a year. A cup of coffee is more of an outlay for most people
than a full-page NYT ad is for Preston’s group -- a group that’s in any event
already saturated with fan fic like Streitfeld’s.
The fight between publishing reactionaries and publishing
progressives is far from equal. The good news is that the forces of publishing
progress have on their side both numbers and coherence. Over time, I’m
confident numbers and coherence will prevail over money and star power. But
it’ll require commitment, because a defining characteristic of all
establishments is that they will never reform without a hell of a fight.
NYT: Amazon supporters point to a
rival petition on Change.org.
It is a rambling love song to the retailer. Signers sometimes append invective
decrying the New York publishers for having the audacity to reject novels.
“There is something wrong with a system that picks those who use their elitist
ideas of art to choose who is published,” reads a comment.
The petition has 7,650 signatures. By comparison, a 2012
Change.org petition calling on Amazon to
ban the sale of whale and dolphin meat drew over 200,000 signatures.
Barry sez: This is when Streitfeld really hits his
full partisan stride:
* A letter that gets 909 signatures warrants a NYT headline;
one that gets 7650 has no independent significance, but exists only as
something “pointed to” by “Amazon supporters.”
* A letter that gets 909 letters “spread through the
literary community;” one that gets over 7650 is merely a “rambling love song”
(truly rich, from the guy who wrote this blow job of an article… seriously,
would even one thing have read differently if it were a straight-up Hachette
press release?).
* Preston’s letter doesn’t even allow for comments, which is
par
for the course among publishing reactionaries; for the other letter, our
dispassionate reporter searches among thousands of comments for one he thinks
is weak and makes sure to mention it (though is the comment really so weak? If
legacy gatekeepers aren’t letting one manuscript through for every thousand
they reject, why are they called “gatekeepers”?).
*A letter that gets 909 signatures stands alone; one that
gets over 7650 must be compared to another letter on a totally unrelated topic
that got far more. Did you catch that? The relevant Streitfeldian comparison
isn’t between an anti-Amazon letter with 909 signatures and a pro-Amazon letter
written in response that garnered 7650; it’s between the pro-Amazon letter and
some unrelated thing Streitfeld managed to dig up about dolphin and whale meat.
Oh, and the best part? All of this is progress
for Streitfeld! Seriously, he’s actually showing some improvement compared to
his last outing...
My favorite part about the dolphin thing, BTW, is imagining
Streitfeld sifting through scores of Change.org petitions until he found just
the right one to try to make the pro-Amazon petition numbers seem unimpressive.
Now that’s Streitfeldian!
Really, it’s as though Streitfeld writes a whole article
about the massiveness of some guy’s four-inch manhood, and then grudgingly,
almost as an aside, mentions that, well, okay, there was this guy John
Holmes, who was, admittedly, like three times bigger -- but then immediately
goes on to note that, of course, by comparison to the Washington Monument,
which is over 500 feet, Holmes’s endowment wasn’t really all that.
Joe sez: The Streitfeld. Maybe that could be the name
of the reporter Razzie Award equivalent…?
"And the first Streitfeld Award for embarrassingly
partisan reporting and a shocking lack of journalistic integrity goes to…
Streitfeld! How incredibly Streitfeldian! Who could have predicted this, other
than anyone who can read above the second grade level?"
I apologize. That last joke was insensitive to second graders. But I am semi-serious about an award for bad journalism. Because there is a journalistic code of ethics. Someone really ought to read this to Streitfeld:
The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by
seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and
issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to
serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the
cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.
Barry and I aren't journalists. We're more like op-ed
columnists. But we always try to back up our views with data and logic, and we
constantly pressure check our integrity. My blog does not claim "All the
news that's fit to print". We don't pass off our biases as news and file
them under Technology (the section the Streitfeld piece ran in). And we don't
get paid for blogging.
The NYT should be ashamed and apologetic for running
Streitfeld's nonsense and calling it news.
Barry sez: Yeah, it’s not easy to distinguish between
Preston’s paid ad and the coverage the Times offers him on top of it.
Pro-tip for the Times: this is not something to be proud of.
NYT: Mr. Preston is not one of those writers who
checks his Amazon ranking on a regular basis, or even totes up his sales. He
would rather be writing. But he recently thought he should get some numbers
from Hachette. They came in the other morning, and they seemed worth sharing
with his wife, Christine.
About half his book sales used to come from Amazon. But
since the retailer started discouraging orders, his paperback sales are down 61
percent and his e-book sales are down 62 percent.
Mrs. Preston, a photographer, studied the bleak sheet.
“It’s gotten personal,” she said. “I knew you were going
to take a hit, but I had no idea it would be like this.”
Joe sez: Perhaps, Mrs. Preston, you should have
talked some sense into your husband when he immediately rejected Amazon's offer
to monetarily compensate authors? Or when he rejected the second offer, calling
it blood
money? That 62 percent drop could have been a 300+ percent bonus.
Instead, Preston nobly spoke on behalf of his ten-billion
dollar corporate master, Lagardère, whose Kindle sales only make up 1% of their revenue.
NYT: “Are you worried?” Mr. Preston asked.
“Because you should be. What if Amazon says, ‘Why should we sell Doug Preston’s
books? He’s a thorn in our sides.’ Guess what? All this goes away.”
Joe sez: On a purely base, ugly, karma level, I
wouldn't mind that happening.
I keep seeing legacy apologists like Preston and Patterson
getting adoring press, spreading misinformation, harming writers, and the petty
part of me wants to see them reap what they're sowing.
Amazon, however, has been very restrained in the pettiness
department. No contract with Hachette, but still selling their titles. Three
offers trying to find a way to compensate authors. Two calls to Preston.
Repeated attempts to expedite the negotiation process.
Meanwhile, Preston looks at his 300 acres and wonders if his
wrongly-perceived altruistic bravery will result in him losing them, while not
uttering a peep about his own publisher's actions in this dispute.
And amplifying those misconceptions are journalists like
Streitfeld, trying to paint Preston as some sort of a blameless, heroic figure.
Still, the fact is I do feel for Preston, and for all
Hachette authors. I don't want to see any of them hurt.
I truly understand what it is liked to be at the mercy of an
idiotic publisher. I
sympathize. And I hope this whole situation is resolved swiftly.
But every time Preston, or Patterson,
or Turow, or Colbert,
flaps his gums in the media, it emboldens Hachette to hold firm to its intent
to control ebook pricing and prevent Amazon from discounting. I can imagine
Hachette execs back-slapping each other on Sunday, when Preston's $104,000 ad
runs, while the majority of Hachette authors wonder why their publisher failed
them. They don't have 300 acres to lose. Many of them will lose electricity, or
their lease.
I used to live bi-annual check to bi-annual check. I
struggled to make ends meet. And I also feared criticizing my publishers in
public, because I needed them to put food on the table.
You're not a hero, Doug. You're still that coward, running
away from bullies in the schoolyard.
You're just so delusional you don't know
who the bullies really are.
Barry sez: Well, I’m on my fourth beer. I think. I
lost count.
Part of me hates spending so much time exposing the shoddy
thinking of people like Preston and the even shoddier journalism of people like
Streitfeld. We’ve got other things to do -- like our day jobs. But I’m always
struck by how much uncritical and nakedly partisan establishment media
attention publishing reactionaries like Preston can garner. If we don’t use
social media to point out the flaws in the thinking and the incestuousness of
the coverage, more people might swallow it all uncritically. Which would help
the Prestons and Pattersons succeed in stymying progress.
Joe sez: You must be the change you wish to see in
the world. At least, that's what it says on the statue of Ghandi I keep at my
writing desk.
Barry sez: Hah, how Streitfeldian of you! But we also
need some totally irrelevant figure to compare things to. Dolphin meat or
something.
Joe sez: I'll try harder next time. Incompetence like
that doesn't always happen on your first attempt. You really have to work at
it.
ADDENDUM
Joe sez: Here, and on Passive Voice, writers are making some points Barry and I missed. I believe they're worth adding to the blog post, because some things often get lost in comment threads.
Also worth noting is that the law of unintended consequences is in full effect. Since Streitfield's article went live, over 160 more people have signed our petition.
Jeff Shelby: "But he recently thought he should get some numbers from Hachette. They came in the other morning..."
I laughed so hard at this because I don't think many of us that have published traditionally can relate to a quick turnaround - if any - on a sales numbers request.
I genuinely hope every single Hachette author calls in and asks for their sales figures and that Hachette gets them the info as quickly as they did Preston.
Lawrence De Maria: Mr. Preston pointed out it was Amazon that put authors in the line of fire in the first place." Since when do sources point out "facts" still in dispute?
Tracy Sharp: I think these rich writers are biting the wrong hand. Their publishers will be closing their doors some day, maybe in the not too distant future, and then they'll be kissing Amazon's ass.
David Vandagriff: PG flat believes that either Preston or the Times author took the Grandinetti quote out of context.
It is far more likely that Grandinetti’s response, “This was the only leverage we had,” was describing the fight between Amazon and a financially failing Hachette, not a response to any question about “squeezing the writers.”
The Times got the quote from Preston, because Amazon could see a Times hatchet (Hachette?) job in progress and decided not to cooperate. This raises the possibility that an advanced case of ADS has boggled Preston’s mind completely and he entirely misremembers whatever Grandinetti had to say. Or perhaps, Preston passed on what Grandinetti should have said instead of what Grandinetti did say, all in the service of supporting the Times narrative.
and
I just did a quick search and it appears that Round Pond, Maine, where Preston “summers” doesn’t have a bookstore.
The question that comes to mind is if the dog eats Preston’s copy of “Civil Disobedience,” will Preston order a replacement from Amazon or endure having his “writing shack” appear less fashionable for the remainder of the summer?
Alan Tucker: My question is this: What can Amazon do to pressure Hachette that won’t harm Hachette’s authors?
Patricia Sierra: I don’t think the wealthy, name-brand authors are doing themselves any favors when they whine in public. A segment of those seeing the whines will think less of them.
and
Meanwhile, back in Preston’s world, it’s great to see that he still isn’t taking sides in the Hachette/Amazon contract negotiations.
Sarah McCabe: I’m sure his sales aren’t down at all because he’s publicly being a giant ass.
Dan DeWitt: This is an amazing piece of impartial journalism. They’ve used whales to prove that 900 > 7500+.
Nirmala: Amazon has not actually prevented anyone from buying Preston’s or any other author’s books. And yet where were Preston and his millionaire buddies when Barnes and Noble completely prevented people from buying Simon And Schuster’s books a year ago? I do not remember any full page ads then. And where is their outrage when booksellers all across the country refuse to stock Amazon’s publishing imprints? Or when booksellers refuse to stock even bestselling titles by self-published authors? Preston’s letter states “We feel strongly that no bookseller should block the sale of books or otherwise prevent or discourage customers”, but in truth it is only a concern to them when it is their own books that are being discouraged (again not ever prevented from being sold).
Richard Fox: No author should ever play the martyr card just because they oppose something Amazon does. Amazon isn’t vindictive towards individuals, but it will cut off bad actor business partners.
Robert Bidinotto: O, woe is the life of the literary One Percenter!
While we take “vacations,” the wealthy Mr. Preston “summers” in a “shack” in the Maine woods, where he grouses oh-so-loudly about the unfairness of Amazon in depriving his books of “advance purchase buttons.”
Gee, Amazon doesn’t even offer Moi, a lowly indie author, any advance purchase buttons. But then, I’m not crown royalty. Muffy, please go fetch Mr. Preston a pina colada while he “summers” away, so that he may drown the wretched pain of his cursed existence.
Chris Armstrong: Preston is quite mystified by how he came to be in charge of an organization like Author’s United. I guess his creating the organization and putting himself in charge wasn’t a clue.
Claire Chilton: I suspect there are more people in the world who would like to see whales and dolphins survive than there are authors.
I mean, I don't have the statistics, but I suspect that there aren't as many writers in the world as there are people who like dolphins. I have yet to meet a person who wanted to kill all the dolphins, but I've met many people who aren't writers.
I wonder how that blatantly obvious nugget got missed in the article...
Joe sez: I'll add more as more come in...
Posts
