tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post3212068692335312845..comments2024-03-18T06:16:18.802-05:00Comments on A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: Guest Post by Barry EislerJA Konrathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-21633029711839500172012-03-16T12:47:06.143-05:002012-03-16T12:47:06.143-05:00Great article. I for one welcome our new Amazon O...Great article. I for one welcome our new Amazon Overlords.<br /><br />The music industry and publishing industry have made sure the term "starving artist" does not become an anachronism.<br /><br />Everyone knows the two industries are less than forthcoming about royalties, sloppy on payments, and treat the artists like crap... after all, they have "no choice", right?<br /><br />I welcome Apple and Amazon shaking up these archaic industries and making them truly compete, for the first time in decades.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18195562243743200047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-26831167201566754172011-11-07T09:15:48.081-06:002011-11-07T09:15:48.081-06:00Joe Konrath wrote that the legacy publishers seem ...Joe Konrath wrote that the legacy publishers seem to have an "OPEC-like tacit agreement among them." That is what I love about this post and the comments. In other writing forums and places that are more pro-legacy publishers, this point never comes up and would probably be dismissed if so. But I thought it was quite obvious the commercial or legacy publishers are OPEC-like. That's quiet good for the publishers, not so good for the authors.<br /><br />Interesting post :-)<br /><br />JodiJodi Ralstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02400458940845469179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-20211639581529026712011-11-02T13:22:50.654-05:002011-11-02T13:22:50.654-05:00"Because, remember. If Amazon ever becomes a ..."Because, remember. If Amazon ever becomes a real monopoly, they could lower those 70% royalties a lot."<br /><br />Overall, your post seems to take a somewhat naive approach to business. Monopolies aren't required to dictate terms in business--they never have been. What matters is dependence--on a product, on a process, on a distribution network. In other words, the pain of changing can be so great that a consumer stays where they are. <br /><br />Amazon's got plenty of those in the masses of self-publishers they're distributing. <br /><br />And besides--your characterization of the "traditional" and the "new" publishing is cartoonish. Traditional publishing isn't men with waxed mustaches and top hats tying authors to ralroad tracks, and self-publishers aren't all the same, either. It's silly.<br /><br />As for why an author might fear Amazon's dominance when it's already happening in traditional publishing--why not? Moving from the frying pan to a different frying pan seems a valid concern for any business peson (and self publishers are all now business persons). Questioning the terms of your business arrangements seems one of the most prudent things somebody could do.<br /><br />But none of that makes for good, snarky blog posts, does it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-28744634061159247732011-11-02T12:14:46.117-05:002011-11-02T12:14:46.117-05:00J.Tanner said I think it's reasonable to extra...J.Tanner said <i>I think it's reasonable to extrapolate that an author who's been selling a book a day of each book for a year will probably, on average, continue to do so for the next couple years. As you say, we don't know, but we make many reasonable extrapolations, like Amazon isn't suddenly going to start screwing authors next year.</i><br /><br />While some come out of the gate with big sales - the fact is most will indeed start with one a day in the beginning (that's what happened to my husband when he first started). And when his 5th book came out (2.5 years later) he was selling 2,600 books a month and over xmas 10,000+ books per month. If you want instant success neither self or traditional is the way to go - but having your books "off the market" produce absolutely nothing.<br /><br />Robin Sullivan | <a href="http://bit.ly/ivMp8P" rel="nofollow">Write2Publish</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/kgyKuE" rel="nofollow">Ridan Publishing</a>Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-85385786874042723282011-11-02T12:10:51.001-05:002011-11-02T12:10:51.001-05:00J. Tanner says...
I don't entirely disagree. I...J. Tanner says...<i><br />I don't entirely disagree. I think there is value, for an author who hasn't trade published before to do a querry round with each book as completed to a select group of agents/editors. Give it, say, 6-9 months. You can be prepping for self-pub in that timeframe or working on something else. Whatever your normal process. If you get a nibble, consider it. If not, move on with self-pub. Worst case that book is slightly delayed as self-pub but we're talking long-tail here.</i><br /><br />I don't see why you should keep it off the market for 6-9 months. Why not put it out there...if the book is good, and finds a following...you can leverage that audience for a better deal (and better terms) than if you go into the arrangement with nothing. <br /><br />It seems as you look upon self-publishing as a "last resort" when in fact it should be a "first opportunity". (IMHO)<br /><br />Robin Sullivan | <a href="http://bit.ly/ivMp8P" rel="nofollow">Write2Publish</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/kgyKuE" rel="nofollow">Ridan Publishing</a>Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-48300560589818541112011-11-02T12:01:38.863-05:002011-11-02T12:01:38.863-05:00"We follow the people at the top of the self-...<i>"We follow the people at the top of the self-pub pyramid to get the best possible advice but that can give unrealistic expectations of results. You need to look at the bottom of the pyramid too (like these folks: http://booknotselling.blogspot.com/) and consider, of the two, the odds are greater you will end up there--lots of effort and optimism going in--and then crickets."</i><br /><br />I take a lot of gruff for statements like I'm about to make but you should NOT look at these people because quite frankly they don't matter. What I mean is those at the bottom are there for a reason...poor writing...bad or no marketing...doing 100 things wrong. <br /><br />If you are looking at writing professionally and have a) skill b) talent c) work hard at your craft and your marketing then you will not be at the bottom. More likely than not you will be "in the middle".<br /><br />I do think people in the middle will do better with self-publishing. You control more...you are more highly motivated. Many people make good (and more than good money) doing just that.<br /><br />If you want to go beyond good money...to become a "household name", international bestseller, get the movie deal...then your changes are 1 in a million but significantly better if you are traditionally published than if you are self.<br /><br />It really comes down to what you want most. Align your path with your goals.<br /><br />Robin Sullivan | <a href="http://bit.ly/ivMp8P" rel="nofollow">Write2Publish</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/kgyKuE" rel="nofollow">Ridan Publishing</a>Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-37391041194997484872011-11-02T11:42:38.663-05:002011-11-02T11:42:38.663-05:00Anonymous said...First of all, the arrangement bet...Anonymous said...<i>First of all, the arrangement between a publisher and an author is contractual. No arms were forced, including Barry's and Joe's.</i><br /><br />Before the ebook revolution traditional publishing was the "only game in town" so authors HAD to sign bad contracts or remain unpublished.<br /><br />Times have changed and now there are options but the contracts are still Draconian (see my previous post as to why). The good news is it is changing and for those publishers who don't adjust...authors CAN now walk away because there are finally choices and other opportunities.<br /><br />Robin Sullivan | <a href="http://bit.ly/ivMp8P" rel="nofollow">Write2Publish</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/kgyKuE" rel="nofollow">Ridan Publishing</a>Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-31284827947775835762011-11-02T11:07:27.079-05:002011-11-02T11:07:27.079-05:00Basil Sands says...Those who really really want to...Basil Sands says...<i>Those who really really want to succeed and then put the effort into it will usually succeed. Regardless of whatever the market may be doing.</i><br /><br />I totally agree!!Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-53922317535475120872011-11-02T11:04:16.386-05:002011-11-02T11:04:16.386-05:00@J.Tanner - I agree with your chicken and Egg with...@J.Tanner - I agree with your chicken and Egg with Joe's success and his traditional background. And Hocking and Locke are outliers so we can't look to them. But here are some others....<br /><br />David Dalglish - routinely selling 10,000+ books a month priced from $0.99 - $4.99.<br /><br />H.P. Mallory - who sold 20,000 books in November last year.<br /><br />Michael J. Sullivan - who sold 40,000 books at $4.95 and $6.95 between Nov and Feb.<br /><br />Marshall Thomas - who sold 17,500 and 19,500 books in May/June.<br /><br />Leslie Ann Moore - who sold 5,500 books in July.<br /><br />Nathan Lowell whose last royalty statement from my company showed nearly 30,000 books (all at $4.95)<br /><br />None of these people had prior traditional publishing experience to fuel their successors.<br /><br />Robin Sullivan | <a href="http://bit.ly/ivMp8P" rel="nofollow">Write2Publish</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/kgyKuE" rel="nofollow">Ridan Publishing</a>Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-56705397434454139142011-11-02T11:03:14.467-05:002011-11-02T11:03:14.467-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-78468572379112275092011-11-02T10:52:02.082-05:002011-11-02T10:52:02.082-05:00@Adam - Please see my post above about the positiv...@Adam - Please see my post above about the positive experiences I had since signing. I'm not saying everyone should - but it HAS worked out well with us so far. Still - the proof will be a year or two out but there are reasons for optimism.<br /><br />@DVShooter - I agree Hocking/Locke are outliners and not really germaine. But Michael J. Sullivan (my husband was a "little guy" that got a six-figure deal and he had three books fast-tracked (signed in July coming out Nov, Dec, Jan) no it won't always happen but there are some publishers doing things "right".<br /><br />@Jim - I agree with you that selling direct is what authors should pursue as content is king...but...distribution is queen and Rowlings can sell direct because she has millions of eyeballs on her site. Most authors don't have enough traffic to make a living JUST off of sales from their sites.<br /><br />@J.Tanner - As far as release schedules go...D.B. Henson's Deed to Death went live in June (or was it July) that was the first self-publishing book to hit the market and...as far as I can see...has laid there like a rock. My husband's Theft of Swords (Nov 23) will be the second...Let's see what the sales are like in March to know whether it does well or not. I think next up is H.P. Mallory who has her big-six coming in Februrary if I'm not mistaken.<br /><br />@J.Tanner - As for keeping eboook rights - Well I would think very seriously about any publisher that would do one and not the other. A bad business move IMHO. But still there are reasons that I might consider it. In the case of John Locke...from the articles I've read it sounds like HE is using THEM for distribution - in other words he didn't get a print-only deal - he hired a distributor, but I've not seen the deal but that is just my take on it.<br /><br />@SBJones - The time factor you mention has a few components. First the books usually need extensive rewriting so they really can't be SURE when the final manuscript will be in their hands. Secondly, they have release schedules tied to seasons (catalogs that go to book buyers and they go into production MONTHS and MONTHS before the release date. Thirdly, they need to account for the ability to "slide in" a big title if it comes across their path. Lastly they have to account for slippages and missed deadlines both on the behalf of the author and their staff. But I agree with you this is one of the problems inherent in big-print publishing.<br /><br />Robin Sullivan | <a href="http://bit.ly/ivMp8P" rel="nofollow">Write2Publish</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/kgyKuE" rel="nofollow">Ridan Publishing</a>Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-37741792107462328202011-11-02T10:26:31.735-05:002011-11-02T10:26:31.735-05:00But where are those authors who have given up self...<i>But where are those authors who have given up self-pubbing and are now singing the praises of legacy publishers?</i><br /><br />I have zero complaints and have had nothing but a positive experience since Michael signed with Orbit (Fantasy imprint of big-six publisher Hachette Book Group). <br /><br />Yes, when we got the contract there was some boilerplate language that we couldn't agree to...and you know what...we didn't. We worked with them and got he contract changed. Such is the power that good self-publishing provides.<br /><br />We are still a few weeks out from the release of the first book (Theft of Swords debuts Nov 23) but what do we have...<br /><br />A ton of "buzz" in the fantasy community around the move. Every major fantasy review site I've contacts has already got copies from Orbit and have their reviews scheduled.<br /><br />A signing at BookExpo America followed up with an industry insider cocktail party where Michael was able to make connections with everyone from the buyers at B&N to editors at Publisher's Weekly.<br /><br />An incredibly professional <a href="http://www.facebook.com/riyria" rel="nofollow">facebook page</a> that has more more than 930 likes (a venue where Michael has little to no prior presence).<br /><br />A team of professionals who have worked on the covers, editing, and marketing to make the books even better than they were when we did it all ourselves.<br /><br />Full page premium placement (inside front cover) ads in major fantasy magazines such as the November edition of Locus Magazine.<br /><br />Being selected by Library Journal as the September Fantasy Debut. Their starred review will open the door to libraries that has been closed to us as a self-publisher.<br /><br />Review by Publisher Weekly - another avenue closed to self-publishers.<br /><br />Two more foreign deals (Japan and Brazil announced in the last week) - I venture to say that the Holland, Russia, Poland, France, and Germany deals already closed were fueled by Orbit picking up the series.<br /><br />Book Club edition - being put out by Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Club.<br /><br />Audio version produced by one of the largest audio production companies in the world with tremendous distribution.<br /><br />Josie Feedman (co-head of the books to film division at ICM) is now representing the series for film and television rights.<br /><br />So yeah...I'll sing the praises with full enthusiasm. Now am I saying that other authors will get similar treatment? No probably perhaps not...which is why each author has to decide the options available to them and make informed decisions. But for those that do go the traditional route - it doesn't have to be a disaster in the making.<br /><br />Robin Sullivan | <a href="http://bit.ly/ivMp8P" rel="nofollow">Write2Publish</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/kgyKuE" rel="nofollow">Ridan Publishing</a>Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-49535758586081690322011-11-02T10:06:00.301-05:002011-11-02T10:06:00.301-05:00Okay, so I've not read the comments...will in ...Okay, so I've not read the comments...will in just a minute but I want to reply to Joe's assertion that no one will stand up for traditional publishing...Even though I've been accused as being the "self-publishing cheerleader" Let me say that the problem isn't the publishers...its the model...Let me explain.<br /><br />Publishing follows the venture capitalist model. An organization makes a large investment in cash and as such wants to have control to increase their chances of making a profit. In the corporate world this can mean the original creator of the company is ousted. What’s more…they will lose money in one out of five deals so they must take a larger piece of the pie to offset the potential losses.<br /><br />Because of this they tip the scales in their favor. ebook royalties that are disproportionate, Draconian publishing contracts, but are not operating in a Snidely Whiplash, evil-for-evil's sake way. They are trying to survive in a flawed model. <br /><br />In my publishing company, there are no advances, I use POD and ebook so I have very little upfront costs. This means that both myself and the author come into the project on similar footing (we both are investing time...the writer in creating the work...and me in editing, cover design, and marketing activities). Every one of the books I produce is profitable immediately so I have no tax on the performers to make up for the losers. This allows a true partnership between us...and you know what...my contact lets the author walk anytime they want to. My philosophy is that if I'm doing right by them they'll want to stay. If not they deserve to find better.<br /><br />It's not all "indie vs traditional" there are multiple choices now and even big-six are changing their contracts to be more "author friendly" as evidenced by the contracts signed by my husband, Joe, Barry, and the like. My only plea is to read what you sign and go in with your eyes wide open as to what you are getting in for. Matching your expectations and getting what you want out of the relationship can make a traditional deal a good one for you. It's not all Stockholm Syndrome...the right deal under the right circumstances can make a lot of sense.<br /><br />Robin Sullivan | <a href="http://bit.ly/ivMp8P" rel="nofollow">Write2Publish</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/kgyKuE" rel="nofollow">Ridan Publishing</a>Robin Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00613910688999698522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-55372810927410343062011-11-01T14:22:22.517-05:002011-11-01T14:22:22.517-05:00Anyway - Preach it, Joe and Barry! You're righ...<i>Anyway - Preach it, Joe and Barry! You're right - and you're being listened to.</i><br /><br />Thanks. It is appreciated.<br /><br />Lots of people are happy to jump on the bandwagon, decrying our terrible metaphors. It's good to know some people understand what we're trying to say, and that we're not inhuman intolerant sexist racist scumbags.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-10225176537108916032011-10-31T23:56:12.418-05:002011-10-31T23:56:12.418-05:00I'm sure it doesn't matter, but just so yo...I'm sure it doesn't matter, but just so you know: I stopped following two authors on Twitter today due to the whole "house slave" thing. By the fact that I'm commenting here I bet it won't be to hard to guess which side of the field they were on. <br />I have seen way too many of my author friends in tears (literally) over minuscule royalty statements and non-existent support from publishing houses, or over beloved series that got cancelled, yet they would still stand up and defend their publishers against any criticism at all. Oxymoron? You betcha. That's changing, slowly, though. I see more and more of my friends embracing digital self-pubbing, and I as a fan am very glad of it. (After that sentence structure, I'm sure everyone reading this is extremely grateful I'm not planning on trying NaNoWriMo...). <br />Anyway - Preach it, Joe and Barry! You're right - and you're being listened to.Shelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10328121923979252376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-68751859439024774172011-10-31T17:10:47.684-05:002011-10-31T17:10:47.684-05:00Hmm, publishing houses having a monopoly? I think ...Hmm, publishing houses having a monopoly? I think they are more of a cartel. Aside from that I agree that a lot of fuss is made over Amazon’s monopoly. Amazon cannot monopolize the Internet because the Internet has no borders. (no pun intended) To survive on the Internet, you must be the fastest, the cheapest, and the easiest.And as long as Amazon does that they are the big deal.DG Sandruhttp://sandru.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-70798534909895626782011-10-31T03:16:52.920-05:002011-10-31T03:16:52.920-05:00@Joshua: My pleasure! Bradbury is an unapologetic ...@Joshua: My pleasure! Bradbury is an unapologetic walking contradiction, a fascinating man, and a terrific writer. He makes no apologies. He doesn't have to make any apologies. And that's what I love about the guy, and consequently, why it is so fun to talk about him. <br /><br />If you're ever in the area, I'll take you up on that, but the next round is on me, and I warn you: there is always a next round when it comes to booze. It's the one writerly F. Scott Fitzgerald vice that I allow myself :).Aric Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04675864907131784458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-31131984042467442122011-10-31T01:49:11.219-05:002011-10-31T01:49:11.219-05:00I don't know if this is the place to ask this,...I don't know if this is the place to ask this, but I have a couple questions e Amazon's Kindle bestseller lists. <br /><br />First, can you get longer lists, like the 2nd 100 in a category?<br /><br />Secondly, my unscientific observation is that few books in those top 100 lists have prices in the range Joe recommends, i.e. between say 2.99 and 4.99. There are lots of .99 books and lots of 9.99 and higher, with a few in between. And my question is why more of the .99 folks don't ratchet up to 2.99-4.99?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-20447051463384372442011-10-30T23:20:38.816-05:002011-10-30T23:20:38.816-05:00Aric, you're a pleasure to debate with. It'...Aric, you're a pleasure to debate with. It's great to meet a fellow Bradbury enthusiast, and the scope of your knowledge is certainly impressive.<br /><br />Though I had never given it much thought before, your observation that Bradbury - while indisputably one of the most brilliant minds in science fiction - is surprisingly close-minded and something of a technophobe, is spot-on. <br /><br />Also, anyone that's been privileged enough to have some face time with man himself earns my immediate respect. <br /><br />If I find myself near Arkansas at some point, I hope I can buy you a beer and enjoy a lengthy conversation.<br /><br />--JoshuaJoshua Simcoxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-63573177722434858172011-10-30T17:48:45.053-05:002011-10-30T17:48:45.053-05:00"It's also interesting to note how veheme..."It's also interesting to note how vehemently Bradbury seems to despise ebooks. Given his age and stature, I suppose I can forgive it."<br /><br />I would stop short of putting the pulp mags, at least during that time, in the field of what was considered "traditional." There was definitely a caste system there not unlike the print to ebook model. <br /><br />And Bradbury also despises comic books, but that hasn't stopped him from releasing several comic adaptations of his work throughout his career. <br /><br />Also, works like "Fahrenheit 451" show pretty clearly that he's against censorship, yet when I asked him whether comics were to be taken seriously or not, he said, "They'll never be taken seriously because they're too cheap and vulgar and lack imagination." Clearly, he hasn't read some of the books out there that elevate the form. <br /><br />He also doesn't have an email address, and refuses to update his writing technology even though there are machines out there much easier to use and far more convenient. For a man with such a brilliant mind, he was also one of the most closed-minded and surprisingly conservative individuals I've ever met (at least now he seems to be). <br /> <br />I think the lesson to learn from him is that as a writer (and reader, for that matter), you can have your own tastes and preferences, but in the end, you'll do what makes sense financially even if you're one of the greatest living writers out there, and the darling of American literature. For Bradbury, that means turning his nose down at certain art forms, but having the propensity to exploit them when necessary.<br /><br />If you're a writer, who has received some legitimate validation throughout your career, then you owe it to yourself to choose the avenue that gives you the best chance at success.<br /><br />I don't live in New York. I live in Arkansas, where the cost of living is next to nothing. I would love to visit Publishing Central one day, but I have no interest in living there. While my legitimacy as a writer may be taken more seriously by the general public if I landed a "Big 6" contract, I also have to trace the path of my own career. I've kicked and scratched and clawed my way to a full time freelance writing career from where I am, one of the least creative places on earth. <br /><br />I think by giving my fiction the same kind of tenacity and attention to quality that I do to my client work, I've got a hell of a lot better chance on my own. But that's my journey. It's how I choose to play the game. Doesn't mean it'll work for everyone. Doesn't mean it'll work for me, though I'm confident it will, because I'm like a tumor. I don't go away and I don't give up. <br /><br />I also know when I suck, and I know when I don't.<br /><br />If someone wants a "Big 6" career, they're talented and honest with themselves, and work hard, then I hope they land the biggest 7-figure deal of all time. But if that same person sees the value in 70 percent royalties and a system that requires them to do no more marketing work than they would have to do with a traditional publisher to achieve the same level of success, then I'd be a fool to question their logic. <br /><br />Most of the vitriol in this argument comes from New York. That's what I fail to understand. Who cares if the current state of things will open the door for extremely shitty writers to unleash their manure on the world? These individuals give themselves away so quickly that it is literally no trouble at all spotting them. If anything, they make life harder on indies than contracted writers because we get grouped with them. Yet, you won't hear me complaining about crappy writers. I value them because they give me a chance to stand out if I work hard to make sure my book is the best it can be.Aric Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04675864907131784458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-88531336207459137432011-10-30T16:13:31.416-05:002011-10-30T16:13:31.416-05:00"Of course, the irony here is that Bradbury g..."Of course, the irony here is that Bradbury got to where he is by putting the craft and the audience ahead of the means for distribution."<br /><br />Very true, though even when he was published in the pulps Bradbury was still working within the traditional publishing system. I imagine there were very few viable outlets for self-publishing at the height of his career, though even if there were, I doubt he would've taken that route.<br /><br />It's also interesting to note how vehemently Bradbury seems to despise ebooks. Given his age and stature, I suppose I can forgive it.<br /><br />--JoshuaJoshua Simcoxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-71431975699820419182011-10-30T12:22:04.127-05:002011-10-30T12:22:04.127-05:00Netflix stock went down 36% and they lost 81,000 s...Netflix stock went down 36% and they lost 81,000 subscribers. <br /><br />People worry about a subscription model, and now Amazon lowering they're royalties while the "legacy" have always offered lower royalties and continue to do so.<br /><br />I seriously doubt that these fears have much merit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07296643387167277811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-25175761094203946602011-10-30T11:31:06.318-05:002011-10-30T11:31:06.318-05:00@ Aric - well said.
re: Bradbury - ..."the d...@ Aric - well said.<br /><br />re: Bradbury - ..."the distribution channel was of no importance to him. What mattered was sharing an indomitable piece of himself with anyone, who would listen."<br /><br />btw - word verification = "biascoat" <br /><br />What's it trying to say?Sharper13xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275818335558623630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-3300516695603196822011-10-30T10:44:33.727-05:002011-10-30T10:44:33.727-05:00I can understand what the post means by Stockholm ...I can understand what the post means by Stockholm syndrome. I was in that Stockholm boat. I think until an author actually takes the step of going indie, or<br />publishing a work (or some) indie if they are with a publisher already, it is<br />difficult for an author to fully understand the full, rich benefits of being<br />indie.<br /><br />I am so thankful every day I went indie and didn't sign the contract. I'll<br />still say what I said before: indie publishing isn't for everyone, and I don't<br />think authors who go trad are stupid. I am glad I had a trad experience with<br />"The Odd Couple." That experience made me a better indie than I would've been without it.Q. Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17807066260788649256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-27756092016137712212011-10-30T09:52:47.746-05:002011-10-30T09:52:47.746-05:00@Anon 8:11am:Big difference: in 2012 maybe 3-5 mil...@Anon 8:11am:<i>Big difference: in 2012 maybe 3-5 million more Kindles will sell, </i><br /><br />Ummm... Numbers are growing faster than that!<br />les-2q2011-estimated-over-25.html<br /><a href="http://ebookcomments.blogspot.com/2011/10/27-kind" rel="nofollow">15 million new Kindles (K4)</a> per the screen manufacturer e-ink. :) <br /><br />E-ink is gearing up to sell as many screens in the 4th quarter of 2011 as 2010 and the first three quarters of 2011. Times are a changing. <br /><br />Neilwannabuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04297458705683991405noreply@blogger.com