Chuck seems to be having some problems understanding several things that are easily understandable. So, being a helpful guy, I'll take a few
minutes to explain things to them.
Chuck: Hugh Howey has a petition out for… well, I don’t know
exactly what it’s for, except I think it’s like, an anti-boycott for Amazon? A
love-fest for Amazon? I’m not sure.
Joe: It's a
counter to the negative press the media is giving Amazon for its negotiations
with Hachette. Big name authors are using the media to spread misinformation
about the situation, and whine in public about how unfair Amazon is being.
The letter explains,
in detail, what the negotiation is really about, and how Amazon isn't the bad
guy in this situation. Amazon has given readers and writers more choice and
opportunity than ever before, all while keeping prices low and offering much
better royalties.
That isn't a
love-fest. It's the truth.
Chuck: "Below, you will see the names of writers who
thank you for your support. This is only a bare fraction of the people you have
touched. Happy Independence Day.
Signed, your authors."
At this point, I’m left to wonder if Independence Day is the
new April Fool’s.
Joe: Ha ha! You conflated two holidays to be funny!
Outrageous!
I'm left to wonder if you actually read the letter, because
the 4000 people who have signed it, and left thousands of testimonials, seemed
to understand it just fine.
Chuck: I don’t know exactly why Mega-Company Amazon needs a…
petition of support? I like Amazon well enough, and as my publisher they’ve
been aces. I don’t boycott them — but I also try to diversify my buying habits
in the same way I try to diversify my reading and writing and publishing
habits. But I also recognize that Amazon has received a lot of criticism for
the way it does business (as have many big publishers, to be clear), and
further, puts out an e-book environment where you do not really own your
e-books.
Joe: That last sentence was lazy and I don't know who it is
directed toward. Authors? You keep your rights when you publish on KDP, so you
do own them. If you're referring to readers owning ebooks, that's the nature of
digital downloads. You don't own your iTunes purchases either. Every software
download includes a license agreement. What's your point? You're bringing this
up why exactly? Non-sequitor divergences make it tough to tease out your
intent.
Chuck: I’ve also read some contracts from Amazon that are
bad or worse than some of the contracts you get from big publishers.
Joe: The Amazon legal department on their publishing side is
indeed becoming onerous to deal with. But I've yet to see an Amazon contract as
bad or worse as any of the big publishers, and I'm pretty sure I've seen more
of both than you have.
But please, share these contract terms with us. Back up your claim with some data.
Chuck: This isn’t meant to suggest that Amazon is an Evil
Monster (I note the laziness of that too-easy thinking here, in an earlier post
one month ago today). It’s just meant to suggest –
Well, we don’t need a fucking petition to support them.
Joe: Our fucking petition negated much of the potential negative
effect that Preston's carefully orchestrated press release would have otherwise
had. Several media outlets have picked ours up, giving balanced time to an
issue that has been extremely one-sided.
Chuck: They’re not an underdog.
They’re not your savior.
Joe: No, Chuck, they aren't. But they are the company that
innovated the online bookstore everyone wants to shop at by keeping prices low
and offering great customer service. They invented the Kindle. With KDP,
they've allowed thousands of authors to make money they otherwise wouldn't have
been able to. And they've given authors a choice, when before it was sign with
a NY Publishing Cartel or don't get read.
That's information readers and writers need to hear, when the Internet and airwaves are full of Colbert, Patterson, Turow, Preston, et al spouting nonsense about Amazon bullying authors.
Chuck: This petition reads like they’re beatific saints
descending from crepuscular rays to upend cornucopias of food atop the heads of
the homeless. If I didn’t know who wrote it, I’d legit think
it was straight-up satire.
Joe: Ok, I get it. You're being satirical right now.
I think. Perhaps you just aren't good enough a writer to get
your point across.
Chuck: I respect Hugh’s interest in supporting the
environment that clearly supports him. But this is deeply, weirdly,
head-scratchingly absurd. This is, what, a boycott against the boycott? A love
letter to a company? I don’t even know. At this point I’m having trouble
reading it as anything other than a missive from Bizarro-World.
Joe: Preston's silly letter (the one you should be fisking) called
for people to email Jeff Bezos and tell
him to stop harming authors and customers. Our letter goes into detail
explaining that Amazon isn't harming authors or customers.
I can explain it a few more times if it still hasn't sunk
in. And I have a feeling I'll have to.
Chuck: Some quick thoughts on bits from the petition:
“Petition by: Your Writers.”
No. I don’t support petitions like this. You shouldn’t
support a petition like this even as a self-published author. I will scream
this in your ear as long as I can: diversify diversify diversify. Amazon is not
your mother. It’s not your god. It’s a company. Does good things. Does bad
things. *shakes head so hard blood comes out of ears*
Joe: Can you shake your head a bit harder? The image of you
bleeding aurally amuses me.
Diversification has absolutely nothing to do with the Amazon
vs. Hachette debate. Writing for multiple publishers or etailers still makes
you an Amazon writer if you publish on Amazon.
If this is how you fisk, I truly look forward to you fisking
me. Please.
Chuck: “To Thank Our Readers”
Thanking readers is nowhere to be found in this petition.
Joe: How can you reply to a letter you obviously didn't
read?
To wit: "Dear Readers,
Much is being said these days about changes in the
book world, but not nearly enough is being said about the most important people
in our industry.
You. The readers. Without you there wouldn’t be a book
industry.
We owe you so much, and we are forever in your debt. Thank
you for reading late into the night. Thank you for reading to your children.
Thank you for missing that subway stop, for your word of mouth, your reviews,
and your fan emails.
Thank you for seeking our books in so many ways—through
brick and mortar stores, online, and in libraries.
Thank you for enjoying these
stories in all their forms—as digital books, paper books, and audiobooks. "
That's how the letter starts. Perhaps you missed it due to
the dizziness brought on by your ear-related hypovolemic shock.
Chuck: It is a petition thanking Amazon.
Not even individual people at Amazon.
Just… Amazon. Like, the entity.
Joe: Can you point out where we thank Amazon? Hint: We
don't. At all.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions.
Chuck: “By what is
being reported in the media, it may seem like Amazon is restricting what
readers can access. It may seem that they are marginalizing authors.”
They are. This is literally true. You might believe that
this is a good move in the long run — and you could make an argument that
supports Amazon in this, just as you could make one in reverse. But this is
literally actually true, not like, spin by the Giant
Publishing Machine.
Joe: Good job supporting that statement with logic and
facts. Because, in fact, our letter (the one you're blogging about but
apparently didn't read) explains why Amazon is not restricting what readers can
access, nor is it marginalizing authors.
On Amazon, readers can access of all Hachette's books
currently available. Indies don't have pre-order buttons. That's a perk Amazon
removed from Hachette because Amazon may not be offering Hachette books in the
future if negotiations fail. Amazon should allow pre-orders it can't fulfill?
How is that customer-centric?
And certainly you're aware, Chuck, since you seem to be so
well-informed, Amazon also offered to monetarily compensate Hachette authors. Hachette
demurred. Who is the one marginalizing authors?
Perhaps the publisher who can't
come to terms with the largest bookstore on the planet?
But I can see how all of that logic and data withers in the
face of your unsubstantiated opinion that "This is literally true".
It is literally not true. I just showed you why. You should
try it when fisking. That's sorta the whole point of fisking.
Chuck: “All the complaints about Amazon should be directed
at Hachette.”
All of them? Including complaints about warehouse
conditions? Hey, last week they fucked up an order of Transformers and sent it
to — well, honestly, I dunno, but now I know who to send my complaints to. HEY
HACHETTE: AMAZON’S PRIME SHIPPING DOESN’T ALWAYS WORK LIKE THEY SAY IT DOES.
ASSHOLES.
Joe: Ha! Ha! You took a line meant to be read in context,
and then misrepresented it to try to be funny!
Perhaps you should try harder. On both the fisking, and the
funny.
In a letter about an Amazon/Hachette dispute, the complaints
about Amazon should be directed at Hachette. We could have been clearer on
that, but I'm not sure it would have helped you understand any better.
Chuck: More seriously, some arguments have noted that
Hachette has maybe earned this spanking from Amazon. Certainly some publishers
have helped feed the beast that is Amazon and have done poorly by their
authors. I agree with that. This is not really the way to achieve parity and to
improve things, by my mileage.
Joe: So bringing attention to unfair business practices like
shitty royalties and Hachette wanting to raise ebook prices in order to inform
readers and writers when previously they've only been hearing the misinformation
the media is regurgitating—that's not the way to achieve parity and improve
things?
What, praytell, does your mileage show you is the path to
improvement? Maybe you should have blogged about that. Or blogged about something you actually know. Or not blogged at all.
Chuck: “High e-book prices are not good for readers, and
they aren’t good for writers.”
I agree. But isn’t this how the market works? They charge
too much and… people don’t buy it, so they’re forced to be competitive? Hasn’t
that already happened? Perhaps I’m being naive here.
Joe: Naïve. Or purposely obtuse.
You know the price fixing, colluding Big Five paid millions
in damages, right? Restitution to readers who paid too much. Apparently, some people do pay too much.
You know the price fixing was to stifle competition, so all
the major houses could keep prices high, right? That's not how the market
works, which is why the DOJ stepped in.
Chuck: “Amazon pays writers nearly six times what
publishers pay us.”
Yes, and I am all for publishers paying authors more. But
it’s also worth considering that Amazon is literally not your publisher. (I
mean, they’re mine, but as Skyscape.) Amazon does very little for you except
act as a receptacle for your book. Which might be genius. Which might be
dogshit. They literally don’t care. It’s a socket and into it you can shove
diamonds, candy, cat feces, bezoars, babies, whatever.
Joe: Can you post a pic of yourself shoving cat feces into a
socket? Bonus points if your ears are bleeding in the same pic.
No, Amazon is not your publisher, because the writer keeps
their rights. If Hachette offered me a contract where they would distribute my
paper books and I kept the rights, I'd still be with them.
Chuck: The reason they don’t take a lot of that coin is
because… they don’t do anything for you. Like edit. Market. Distribute physical
copies. So on, so forth. Some authors want that, some don’t.
Joe: Agreed, KDP does nothing for authors. I mean, other
than giving us the ability to sell our work to millions of Kindle and Kindle
app owners on one the most popular online store in history.
Oh, and the ability to advertise, like the beta program I'm
in.
Oh, and they distribute my physical copies through Createspace.
But you're right. They don't edit. Editing is easily worth the
52.5% royalties that publishers take. Forever. So good point, Chuck.
Chuck: The trick isn’t going ALL-IN with Amazon, the trick
is demanding better from all publishers, all companies.
Joe: Like you've done in this blog post, where you demanded…
Um.
Hmmm.
Well, you pretty much didn't demand anything from publishers
or companies. You just said we shouldn't go all-in with Amazon. Which isn't
something we put in the letter, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up. But at least you're finally trying to say
something, I suppose.
Chuck: The trick is to support authors,
not corporations. People over corporate entities. (This feels
particularly tone deaf considering the CORPORATIONS HAVE OPINIONS shift with
Hobby Lobby. Petitions in sympathy of companies is cuckoo banana sundae.)
Joe: And you're supporting authors in the blog post by…
Uh.
Hmmmm.
As for the point of our petition, it spoke for itself, and
I've also explained it to you here. But let's do it one more time! Bigshot authors and the media are painting
Amazon as the bad guy. Our letter showed Amazon isn't the bad guy. If that's a
cuckoo banana sundae (ha! The chuckles never stop with you!) then sign me up
for one with extra chocolate syrup.
Chuck: “Hachette is looking out for their own interests, not
the interests of writers or readers.”
And Amazon is not Mother Theresa tending to lepers.
Like, I can’t –
I don’t even?
What is happening?
Joe: Okay. I'll explain it again. You really seem confused as to our intent, but I'm a patient guy.
Hachette is whining in public, looking for sympathy. The
media is reporting this. Many authors are pointing fingers at Amazon, saying they
are bad.
This is all incorrect. That doesn't make Amazon Mother
Theresa. But it makes them the one to back in this dispute. Right now, Amazon
does a lot for readers and writers. I know you didn't bother to read our
letter, but I urge you to take two hours (it'll take that long) to read the thousands
of testimonials from people who signed the letter.
Amazon has improved the lives of lots of people, readers and
writers. The media is making them look like bullies. We're showing Amazon isn't
bullying anyone. And at this moment in time, Amazon's interests do indeed
coincide with the interests of readers and writers. Hachette's do not. They
want to raise prices, and their negotiating tactics are hurting their own
authors.
Chuck: Listen.
Here’s how you thank Amazon:
Buy shit from them.
Here’s how you thank authors:
Buy their books.
Here’s how you don’t thank Amazon:
Buy elsewhere.
Here’s how authors thank readers:
Just, like, thank them. Thank them in person. Over email.
Over the social media frequency. Offer deals when you can. Help get your books
in their hands. Be awesome to them. Don’t write weird petitions to them that
aren’t really to them at all.
Joe: Thanks for your advice, Chuck. It might be easy for you
to thank both of your readers in person (zing! Look at me, I'm funny too!) but
Hugh and I wrote this letter to explain to readers the Amazon/Hachette
situation while simultaneously thanking them for their support. We also wrote
it to inform writers who don't understand what the squabble is about. If you
like, I can send a tattoo artist over to your house to ink this backwards on
your face. Then maybe you'll be able to understand it, too.
Chuck: You don’t aim your high-five for readers at Amazon.
Joe: I'd suggest you don't fisk a letter you haven't read, and
don't opine when you're ill-informed. It makes it ridiculously easy to refute you, and then you look silly.
Somehow I doubt you'll take my well-meaning advice.
Chuck: Vote with your dollar. But please, seriously, don’t
sign any weird petitions like this.
Joe: Well, you have 57 comments on your blog. We have 4000.
I think more people are listening to us.
Chuck: Howey’s deservedly a bookworld superstar, so I
suspect he’ll get all the signatures he needs — though for what effect, I have
no idea, as this petition feels like a hollow stroke-job that accomplishes
absolutely nothing except blowing a blush of hot, fragrant breath toward Amazon
and away from authors and readers. This feels like shilling — uncomfortable,
in-the-bag, straight-up-shilling.
Joe: And your blog feels like lackluster masturbation where
your love for your own voice has overpowered any common sense and ability to
debate coherently, and says absolutely nothing worthwhile in a meandering,
unimpressive way.
But we're each entitled to our opinions.
Chuck: My message to Hugh would be: I prefer it when you
advocate for authors, not for companies. Hugh has been increasingly “all-in”
with Amazon — and this is counter to how many authors have been successful with
author-publishing. It doesn’t feel instructive. It feels deliberately cozy with
the other side of Big Publishing. (And anybody who thinks Amazon isn’t just its
own version of Big Publishing has lost their mind.)
Joe: "But it’s also worth considering that Amazon is
literally not your publisher. Amazon does very little for you except act as a
receptacle for your book." – Chuck Wendig, a few paragraphs earlier
So which is it, Chuck? Is Amazon not a publisher, or is it
its own version of Big Publishing?
Also, allow me to explain once again what our letter was
about, because it isn't Hugh advocating for Amazon. It's Hugh and I explaining
what's happening with Amazon/Hachette.
Amazon is being hated on in the media. If they were worthy
of that hate, I'd blog about it. (When I blog I actually make points—you should
try it). In this case, Amazon isn't worthy of the hate, but many people don't
know that. Now they do (well, many of them do, while you don't. But maybe I'll
explain it one more time before I'm done fisking you.)
Chuck: Like I said before: I’m happy with my experiences
with Amazon. I agree they have changed the face of publishing, in many ways for
the awesome, in some ways for the whoa what the fuck.
They have been a wonderful publisher for my work. But — c’mon. C’mon.
C’MON.
Okay, this petition really is satire, right?
Yes? Maybe?
Joe: Yes, Chuck. It was all satire. You finally figured it
out.
Oh… shit. I think my ears are bleeding.
Chuck: [note: it's been made clear this isn't Howey's
petition so much as one he co-authored and is presently championing -- but it
is reportedly the work of several self-published authors. I respectfully
suggest that as a group they might want to get an editor, as this thing reads
like it's about 3000 words too long.]
Joe: Our letter was 2400 words and said something.
Your blog was 1500 words and said exactly jack shit.
But it amused me, and will no doubt amuse my readers.
And I have more than two. J
