Fisking Salon and Rob Spillman

Updated below.

Just when I think media coverage of Amazon/Hachette can't get any worse, Rob Spillman gets everything wrong in today's Salon.

Seriously. Everything. Doesn't anyone fact-check at Salon? Are there editors?

Rob in bold italic idiot font, my responses in plain reasonable text.

If you are an author, how can you possibly defend Amazon? 

Because Amazon is responsible for tens of thousands of authors making money, many for the very first time?

Is that a decent reason?

Here's another: I published with Hachette, and they suck. Poor royalties, shitty one-sided contract clauses, mediocre distribution, short-sighted editorial decisions.

Want more reasons to defend Amazon? Read my blog. Since May, I've been detailing how Hachette and its defenders have been morons, and Amazon has tried several times to end this dispute.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

In their ongoing contract dispute, Amazon is punishing Hachette by disappearing their author’s books, delaying shipping, and directing customers away from titles by recommending others instead.

Just like I'm punishing you, Ron, because I don't subscribe to Tin House magazine, which you edit. I don't advertise in your magazine. I don't buy your books. I've never spent $25 on a Tin House tee shirt, either. And I certainly don't promote anything Tin House on my blog or homepage.

Am I a villain, preventing you from making a living, because I'm not giving you money and ad space? Do I have some sort of obligation to you?

Or maybe... wait a second here... are YOU the villain?

I don't see any copies of MY novels for sale on your website!

Why aren't you selling my books, Rob? All I see are books by other authors. Why are you selling their titles and not mine? Why are you punishing me like this?

Could it be that Tin House can sell whatever the hell it wants to? Because that's how capitalism works?

As for Amazon, aren't they also allowed to sell what they want to? And if they are having a dispute with a supplier, aren't they allowed to use leverage to get the terms they want? Or do they have to roll over because a supplier says so?

If you agree with the latter, maybe I will subscribe to Tin House, and then demand you publish my short stories, advertise my books, and sell my tee shirts (the shirt has a picture of me on it, giving you the finger). Because if we're throwing the free market economy out the window, I want to be able to dictate everything Tin House does, and make sure it's all in my favor.

Also, send me ten thousand donuts. Because I said so. If you don't, you're a bully.

In response, hundreds of prominent writers joined together to send an open letter to Amazon protesting their thuggish tactics.

Well, if you want to get technical, only a few dozen of those writers are what I'd label as "prominent". But there are many I'd label as "misguided" or "ignorant of the facts" or "motivated by greedy self-interest."

But there are several hundred who are the prisoners of Hachette's thuggish tactics.

You know, Hachette, who wants to keep ebook prices high in order to protect their paper distribution oligopoly. Remember? There was a DOJ suit you may have heard of? Hachette was guilty of collusion? Price fixing? Ring any bells?

How about Hachette's refusal to help their own authors? Do you recall when Amazon tried, on three separate occasions, to take Hachette authors out of the line of fire and monetarily compensate them during these negotiations?

Who is the thug? The one who has NO contract with authors but is offering to help them, or the one who HAS a contract with authors and refuses to help, or reach an agreement so their authors can go back to making money?

However, not all writers are on the same page. A few have come forward to say that they have Amazon’s back. 

A few? Did you go through every name in our petition supporting Amazon, and out of 8600 names only find a few writers?

I'll bet you one of those nifty $25 Tin House tee shirts that we have more writers than Preston's petition.

The most vocal is Hugh C. Howey, whose self-published sci-fi novel “Wool” has sold a half-million copies on Amazon. In an article in today’s New York Times, Howey defended Amazon and characterized Ursula Le Guin’s statement that Hachette’s tactics amount to censorship as “mostly lying.”

Did you read the article, Rob?

A commenter on the Passive Voice blog, Mir, is the one said Le Guin is "mostly lying."

And you edit a magazine? Do you do so with the same care you wrote this article? Meticulously checking facts and confirming details?

Mostly lying? That’s the equivalent of “a little pregnant.”

Bad analogy. A better one is, "Rob Spillman is mostly an idiot".

See, I can guess that maybe, sometimes, you aren't always an idiot. An idiot would make a glaring mistake like the Howey misquote. An idiot would make a ridiculous comparison between "mostly lying" which means "a lot of lies mixed in with a little truth" and "mostly pregnant" which means "pregnant."

But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you a "100% idiot" because maybe, elsewhere, you've written stuff that isn't idiotic. Hopefully.

Howey, like most writers who are Amazon defenders, is a self-published genre writer. 

Can I rewrite that sentence without the bias it reeks of?

Howey is a hybrid writer who has published on many platforms and with many companies, including Amazon, B&N, Kobo, iTunes, and Simon & Schuster, has defended Amazon because he, and tens of thousands of other authors, are treated well by Amazon, given great royalty rates, fair contract terms, and control over their careers.

(And he has become the Times’ go-to author to predictably take Amazon’s side; yesterday’s piece was at least the fifth he has been quoted in since the end of May 2014.) 

And now, Rob, you have become my go-to author to quote. But I'm not going to call you and ask for specific quotes. Like the NYT, I'm going to take things you've said online, and use those quotes to make you look bad.

I know this current piece of yours attacks both Hugh Howey and Amazon, but how do you really feel about Amazon, Rob?

"Once again, Amazon is a step ahead of their competition." - Rob Spillman

Rob, that makes it sound like you're on Amazon's side. But this current piece makes you seem like you're delusional and deathly afraid of Amazon. Like you're worried they're going to spy on you, NSA style.

"...my paranoid self can’t help but imagine that Amazon already has my data in its claws." - Rob Spillman

Yikes. That does sound paranoid. Do you have any particular reason to hate Amazon, Rob, other than paranoia?

"My first publishing job, in 1987, was at Random House." - Rob Spillman

Ah. I see. Maybe you could have disclosed that in this anti-Amazon rant, huh?

And maybe you can do just a tiny bit of research next time and see where the NYT is getting its Hugh Howey quotes, so you can read them in context. Because taking quotes out of context just doesn't seem fair, does it?

The most elite among the romance, fan-fiction and sci-fi writers can do quite well on Amazon—according to Slate, self-published titles made up 25 percent of the top-selling books on Amazon in 2012. This bank is good news for Howey and company, but at what ultimate cost?

What ultimate cost? Let's see:

• 70% royalties in most markets
• 12 different countries to self-publish in
• Author keeps their rights
• No non-compete or next option clauses
• KDP Select is optional and offers additional benefits
• Control over content, title, and cover art
• Incredible speed to market
• Monthly payments

Ulp! That sounds awful!

I'd much rather sign with Hachette, who pays 17.5% ebook royalty rates, owns the book for my life plus 70 years, won't let me write other books, can change my title at their whim and force me to accept shitty cover art, takes 18 months to publish and pays me every 6 months, and can't even make a deal with the LARGEST BOOKSTORE IN THE WORLD, which severely compromises my sales.

Yeah. That's the much better option.

By getting in bed with a rapacious efficiency, a corporation that prides economy over artistry, profits over people, they are no better than Ayn Rand libertarians who decry sales taxes and then complain about how underfunded their local public schools are.

Rob, you're seriously making me rethink my "Rob Spillman is mostly an idiot" statement earlier, and forcing me to lean toward the 100% alternative.

No Amazon author is in bed with Amazon. When authors have goals that align with Amazon's goals, it is mutually beneficial. When authors and Amazon have different goals, authors can leave because self-pubbers DON'T SIGN A CONTRACT WITH AMAZON.

Hachette authors, on the other hand, cannot leave Hachette. The publishing term for this is "fucked."

Can you show me how the Big 5 value artistry over Amazon? Seems like the Big 5 only publish some books. That sounds a lot like limiting artistry.

As for profits over people, Amazon gives authors 70% royalties, and offered to pay Hachette authors out of its own pocket. Hachette gives authors 17.5% royalties, and refused to pay authors out of its own pocket.

Also, your analogy just plain sucks. Can you show me where authors making a fortune off of Amazon are complaining that Amazon doesn't care about people or artistry? Can you quote me one rich Amazon author who has said this? For that matter, can you quote me one Ayn Rand libertarian who eliminated sales taxes then complained about underfunded public schools?

Honest question, Rob; do your analogies get any better?

There are several other analogies one could use, such as selling your land rights to a fracking company. You may get a mountain of cash, but your land is poisoned. Oh, well, let future generations deal with the cleanup. 

Answer: No. Your analogies don't get better. And neither does the article.

So I've sold over a million books on Amazon, but in doing so I've ruined... um... what have I ruined? What's being poisoned here? What needs to be cleaned up?

What the hell are you actually trying to say?

In a spectacular bit of short-sightedness, Howey complained to the Times that independent bookstores “blacklist my books.”

Yeah. He said that because, you know, indie bookstores blacklist his books.

See, he used the word "blacklist" correctly. Indie stores refuse to carry his books.

They have a right to not carry his books. It's called capitalism. But I didn't see your Salon article calling indie bookstores "thuggish" or bemoaning how indie bookstores are "punishing" Howey. Or me. Or thousands of other indie authors.

Bias much?

So, let me get this straight—you would like your books, which are published by the company whose avowed goal is to eliminate brick and mortar stores of any kind, to be carried in the same brick and mortar stores your publisher is trying to destroy?

Note to Rob "mostly an idiot" Spillman: Amazon isn't Howey's publisher. Howie self-publishes. Amazon is a platform he publishes on.

I won't speak for Howey, but I personally don't care if my books are in indie bookstores. I was one of the first authors they boycotted, and my sales haven't suffered. But I think it would be a good thing if reporters actually reported, and both sides of a story given equal weight.

Amazon isn't boycotting Hachette books, even though that term is trotted out regularly. So are other loaded terms. The NYT and Salon apparently get tiny elf priapisms repeating this nonsense. But when there is an actual book boycott mentioned, the NYT and Salon treat it with derision, sarcasm, and contempt.

It would be nice to see a bit of balance in the media.

Happily, there are bloggers like me, who have the freedom to call articles like yours bullshit.

Maybe Howey needs to be reminded that Amazon is the company that notoriously squeezes the little guy. They instituted the “Gazelle Program” to “deal” with small publishers. Oh, you are thinking, how cute, swift gazelles! No, Amazon aimed to isolate wounded small publishers — then hammered them with ruthless terms. 

Sort of like Hachette hammers authors with ruthless terms?

Look, I signed the Hachette contract. No one forced me. I found it to be unfair, but I accepted those terms willingly. That's what happens when one party has more negotiating power than the other party. It's called business.

This is the company that relentlessly fights local sales taxes, has horrible warehouse conditions, and introduced an app that would let you scan a book in a bookstore then order it from Amazon at a discount. 

Hey Rob, I'm from Illinois. If I plunk down $40 for an 8 issue digital subscription to Tin House, how much of that do you give to the Land of Lincoln?

Also, have you ever worked in a warehouse? I have. It was horrible. Can you find me a warehouse job that isn't horrible? Instead of parroting other stories you read, can you maybe do a bit of research and see how Amazon's warehouse conditions compare with, say, Walmart's? Or Nike's? Or Hachette's? I'd like to know. I don't think anyone should have to deal with unsafe, unfair, or horrible working conditions, and I'd like to know how bad Amazon is compared to everyone else, rather than just hearing all the time that they're bad.

And lastly, can you show me how fierce competitors who aim to lower prices are bad for customers? Or how high prices are good for customers?

This is the company that would like to have complete vertical integration, where they publish and sell all books, eliminating rival publishers, bookstores, along with anyone who works in publishing.

Wait... I finally get it. You want Amazon to be a company that fosters competition and works to limit its own market share. You know, like all other companies in the world. Because none of them would want to ever get rid of their business rivals.

Did you actually reread this article before you published it? You know, in a kind of editorial capacity?

What company encourages its own competition? Why would you say something so stupid?

INT. COCO-COLA BOARD MEETING, DAY

The CEO speaks to the BOARD

CEO: Today, we're going to pull out of ten major markets in order to allow PepsiCo to better compete with us.

BOARD: Hurray!

CEO: Then we're going to double our prices, chasing customers away from our brand and encouraging them buy our rivals' products.

BOARD: The stockholders will love us!

CEO: Then we're going to split our own company into fifteen competing companies. Two of those new companies will be dedicated to tracking down and beating up people who use our products. Our Superbowl commercial this January will show three thugs kneecapping a blind, elderly man who is sipping a Sprite.

BOARD: Thanks for the advice, Rob Spillman!

What is particularly galling to book lovers is that Bezos really could care less about books. As super-agent Andrew Wylie put it, “Amazon is nothing more than a trucking company, a digital truck company.”  

Okay, not to be all grammar anal, but the expression is "could not care less". I'd normally forgive this, but you were quick and eager to point out (incorrectly) how you didn't like the term "mostly lying". And I'm pretty sure Bezos's personal opinion of books doesn't gall book lovers. Because book lovers can get the widest selection, at the lowest prices, on Amazon, and that's what they tend to care about.

Last I checked, Andrew Wylie didn't have a big S on his chest and could leap tall buildings, but you're allowed to think he's super if you want to. I couldn't care less. (see how I did that?) But again, who cares if Amazon is a digital trucking company? That's what readers want.

SuperWylie, however, probably doesn't like it, because he's being disintermediated. Maybe he can use his super freeze breath to stop progress.

In his book, “The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon,” Brad Stone explains how books were just a gateway, a testing ground for selling everything from shoes to salamis. 

Okay, you've finally hit on an important point. I mean, there is a huge difference between books and salamis. Have you ever had a Dostoevsky grinder? It's too long, and almost impossible to digest.

Conversely, nothing of substance can be printed on cured sausage.

These are completely different products, and shouldn't ever be sold under the same roof, because...

Uh.

Hmm. Can you explain why books are somehow sacred, and food isn't?

According to George Packer’s thorough and sobering New Yorker profile of Amazon, the company now makes $5.25 billion on book sales, only about 7 percent of the company’s $75 billion in total yearly revenue. This is chump change to Amazon, yet this amount still accounts for half the book sales in this country. 

Your point? If you get near one, make it.

Many, like Salon’s Richard Eskow and now Franklin Foer, writing in the New Republic, have begun to argue that Amazon is close to establishing a monopoly, and that it’s high time the Justice Department to step in and deal with the monster they’ve helped create through inaction.

You know that monopolies aren't against the law, right? Neither are monopsonies, which is a much better description of what Amazon might be.

When a retailer fights to keep prices low, which benefits customers, for some insane reason the government considers it a good thing.

Books are not widgets. They are art and ideas. 

So I don't have to pay $40 for a subscription to Tin House? You're making it free because art and ideas aren't products to be bought and sold like widgets?

They have lasting cultural value beyond immediate sales. 

How does the writer get compensated for the value he contributes to culture? Do we get to eat for free? That might work, unless food also has a cultural value beyond immediate sales. It might. I hear a lot of farms are subsidized. Maybe writers could be, too.

Hey! Great idea! The government will decide what's worthy to publish! Isn't that better than Amazon letting readers decide what they want to read on their own?

Publishing is a community, an ecosystem where we all contribute so that it not only survives, but thrives. 

You actually just wrote that publishing exists for publishing's sake, and we all need to support it.

Really. That's what you wrote.

We're really creeping toward that 100%...

Howey and company are eschewing community for efficiency.

Translation: Thinking outside the box can hurt those who depend on the box for expense accounts and 401k plans, even if it benefits those pesky readers.

And, for now, they are reaping the financial rewards. 

Sounds awful. All those poor writers, making money.

One has to wonder though, will Howey and company still be making bank once Amazon is the only game in town? Or will Howey and his cohorts find their profits diminished when Amazon, not needing to compete with other publishers, sets whatever terms they would like. What happens when the only books that exist are being published and sold by Amazon?  

Oh sweet Jesus with a chocolate filling, what name could we possibly call a horrible situation where there is no competition in publishing and authors are forced to accept shitty terms?

Oh, yeah. We call it "publishing"

At least we used to, until Amazon came around.

When the only forum to discuss the merits of any book is on GoodReads, which is owned by Amazon?

Holy shit balls rolled in oats! Amazon is buying the entire World Wide Web!?!? There won't be anywhere left on the Internet to discuss books?!?

Won't someone think of the children!

Dear Mr. Bezos, when you own the entire information superhighway and every ISP and URL, please don't charge an email tax of more than three dollars...

Ethically, do you want to do business with a company that is capitalism at its very worst?

Of course not. That's why I got my rights back from Hachette and now self-pub via Amazon. Duh.

According to Forbes, Jeff Bezos is now the 20th richest person in the world, worth $30.2 billion. He got there by being the most ruthlessly efficient seller our country has ever known. 

In other words, Amazon will destroy the world with enormous selection, great prices, and terrific customer service. Those bastards.

But think of all the bodies that have been trucked over along the way—the hundreds of bookstores and publishing houses, not to mention the tens of thousands of writers who have been squeezed by shrinking margins. 

Um, so far the only writers being squeezed are those who have signed with publishers.

But you can go ahead and worry about the wolf that may eat you next year, rather than the tiger currently gnawing on your leg.

In the end, you are judged by the company your keep.

If that's the case, Salon is the worst online magazine ever. Or everr.

Rob Spillman is editor of Tin House magazine.

Hmm. Maybe I spoke too soon...

Rob emailed me to reply to this post, and I emailed him back. The result was a follow-up article on Salon.

Guest Blog by Leslie Wells

One Way Or Another by Leslie Wells

First of all, a disclaimer: Joe and I go way back. I acquired his first six novels at the New York publishing house where I was an editor. It was a wonderful experience to work with Joe on Whiskey Sour, Bloody Mary, Rusty Nail, Dirty Martini, Fuzzy Navel, and Cherry Bomb. To me, what made the books really sing were his break-the-mold protagonist, Jack (Jacqueline) Daniels, and the many snort-beer-out-your-nose-hilarious scenes. Not to mention that Joe was willing to go on a huge cross-country tour that he set up himself; sleeping on friends’ couches, booking his own signings and speaking events. I remember his excited calls to me, reporting that he’d sold a bunch of copies at a number of great bookstores. Needless to say, I was very sad when the publisher decided to discontinue our small line of mysteries, and Joe and I were unable to keep working together.

Actually, this wasn’t the first time I had to stop editing an author I liked, and whose work I admired. With a tightened economy and large conglomerates devouring smaller houses like amuse-bouches, many of us were experiencing lack of support for authors with whom we’d worked for years—in Joe’s case, more than five. An editor puts loads of labor and love into developing her list of writers, and an author who produces a new book every year or two is icing on the cake. It means a spot on your list that you don’t have to go out and acquire. You know they will deliver; you have a good working relationship; they know what to expect from your editing, and vice versa. And as anyone who isn’t wet behind the ears knows, not every book you publish will earn out. 

Much of publishing is about building an audience; continuing to publish through the titles with lower sales in the hope and belief that the next book will gain an even larger readership. Some houses stay the course when they believe in an author; others can’t, or don’t.

Here’s a story from back in the day: the first company that I worked for published John Irving. He had written three previous novels for another house, all with rather small sales. Then a very smart editorial assistant, Jane Rosenman, read the manuscript of The World According to Garp and highly recommended it to her boss, then editor-in-chief, Henry Robbins. He pre-empted the novel, and the rest is history. (Jane went on to have a great career, and is now with the 5E editorial group.) But that was before Bookscan, and before an author’s track record was considered equal to or more important than the impact of the read itself. If an author’s new novel was on submission today, after three previous small books—what’s known as a “bad track”—it’s my guess that many publishers wouldn’t go near it with a ten-foot pole, no matter how good it was. In some ways, it’s easier for an editor to acquire a first novel than it is to buy an impressive second or third book, if the previous novels netted smallish quantities.

All this is to say that it’s great that indie publishing has come so far, and is such a wonderful option for writers today. Many of my author friends have now chosen to self-publish, as opposed to enduring the nail-biting beauty contest of wooing a traditional publisher. Of course the latter can be rewarding; there are many dedicated editors who love their jobs, and are great at what they do. But if a writer decides that he or she doesn’t want to go that route, it’s nice that independent publishing is such a terrific option.

I myself have experienced being published from both sides of the fence: by a traditional publishing house, and now as a self-published author.

My first novel, The Curing Season, was pre-empted by a top editor at a major New York City house. The art director came up with a lovely cover, the book received some great reviews, and overall I was very pleased with the outcome.

For my new novel, Come Dancing, I decided to take a different tack. So many of the authors I know are choosing to go the indie route that after checking out traditional publishing options, I decided to try it myself.

To backtrack a bit: writing my novel took almost five years, since my day job as an editor takes up all of my weekday hours. (I’m now a freelance editor, ever since the publishing company I was with for two decades was sold.) I wrote draft after draft, and because even an editor needs a good editor, I asked several for their input. Peternelle Van Arsdale, a tremendously gifted freelance editor, was particularly helpful to me. Finally I was convinced that I had a fast-paced, entertaining book with an interesting setting and engaging characters. I was ready to take a deep breath and put it out into the world.

Now for the fun part: I asked the talented designer, Laura Klynstra, to come up with an eye-catching jacket.

Amy Bruno of Book Junkie Promotions (who did a fantastic job putting together my virtual blog tour) asked two bloggers if they could provide early reviews, and to my great relief, they wound up liking it. Then I wrote my own flap copy—a fun assignment after years of coming up with other authors’ jackets! My teenager helped me upload the book. I used Smashwords to send it out to all the various ebook venues, and Createspace for the paperback. 

After that, I e-mailed every single person I knew, and asked them to buy it. 

Here’s the Amazon page with the description and early quotes:

http://www.amazon.com/Come-Dancing-Leslie-Wells-ebook/dp/B00KVQAL98/

Knowing I didn’t have the technical know-how to set up my own website, I asked Kassiah Faul of Creative B to do one for me. When I was browsing other authors’ websites, hers were the ones that really stood out, so I felt very lucky that she had time to do mine. I included two bonus scenes that aren’t in the novel, to attract readers to the site: http://www.lesliewellsbooks.com

Next I set up a Goodreads giveaway, which allowed hundreds of potential readers to sign up for a print copy of the book. After the giveaway, many who did not win a free copy downloaded the ebook and reviewed it. I also set up listings on websites that promote daily deals. I try to hit ten different deal sites on the days that I reduce the ebook price to 99 cents. (I’d read that most ebooks do well with a lower price point, and so far I’ve kept its regular price at $1.99.) The freedom to price my book as I want seems like a huge benefit in a time when zillions of titles are available. And at this point, I’m aiming more for a wider readership and garnering good reviews than earning big bucks.

I also read a number of ebooks to learn more about the whole process. Smashwords founder Mark Coker’s free guides to publishing and marketing were extremely helpful, as were his youtube videos. I had read that in addition to setting up a website, it’s great to blog on a topic that will be helpful to readers, and about which you have some expertise. I figured that my subject was how to improve one’s writing, so every Monday I blog about writing tips: http://on.fb.me/ZjgreK

Joe asked me to include some of my tips:

1. Show, don’t tell. This is one of the cardinal rules of fiction writing, but often it’s hard to be aware of when you’re telling rather than showing. Instead of explaining your characters to the reader, try to reveal who they are through their actions, dialogue, and thoughts. Here are some examples:

Carl was a modest guy who wasn’t comfortable accepting praise. When his manager said the new ad campaign was working well, Carl just ducked his head and went back into his cubicle.

Showing  the action, rather than describing it, can be much more effective:

“Hey, great job on that new ad campaign,” Tom said. “You really knocked it out of the park.”

“Thanks,” Carl muttered. He glanced down at the Styrofoam cup in his hand.  “Guess I’d better get back to work.” He ducked into his cubicle and began shuffling papers.

Here’s another example:

“I’ve just started seeing someone,” Julia said. She didn’t want to sound like she’d been sitting by the phone all this time.

“I’ve just started seeing someone,” Julia said noncommittally. (This shows how Julia was feeling, as opposed to telling the reader how she felt.)

2. Less Is More (Or, When in Doubt, Leave it Out). A common habit among writers is using too many words to describe something. It’s tempting to toss in a few extra adjectives or adverbs once you’re on a roll, picturing a scene in your mind. Or to add to a list of items in your character’s apartment, for instance. But most readers don’t want to have to wade through excess verbiage—particularly when you’re using two words where one would do, or where both words mean essentially the same thing. Take a look at these examples:

Meticulously and carefully, Dr. Pedantic graded the exams.

Edited sentence: Dr. Pedantic graded the exams meticulously. (Meticulously and carefully are similar in meaning, so only one is needed.)

The waiters cleared the table of cutlery, plates, and bowls. Patrick gestured for more champagne.

Edited sentence: As Patrick gestured for more champagne, the waiters cleared the table.

3. Just Hanging Out: Dangling Modifiers. The phrase “dangling modifier” probably brings up bad flashbacks from your middle school grammar class, but it’s good to avoid this common mistake when writing. A dangling modifier occurs when we use a descriptive phrase that is not near the noun that it describes—or the noun isn’t even present in the sentence.

Here are a few examples:

At the age of ten, my family moved to a new neighborhood.  (Your family was ten? Then your parents were … nine?)

Edited sentence: When I was ten, my family moved to a new neighborhood.

Running to catch the subway, my manuscript fell out of my backpack. (The manuscript was running for the D train?)

Edited sentence: As I ran to catch the subway, my manuscript fell out of my backpack.

Upon entering Jack’s apartment, his huge collection of albums caught my eye. (This implies that the albums grew legs and walked into the apartment.)

Edited sentence: As I entered Jack’s apartment, his huge collection of albums caught my eye.

(Many more tips are on my blog.)

So far, the indie experience has been amazing.  I loved being able to choose my own jacket, write my book’s description, control the way I promote and market my novel, and change the pricing at the click of a button. And I like the fact that my novel is available in all the ebook venues, from Amazon to Barnes & Noble, Apple ibooks, Scribd, and so on. I’m now working on the sequel to Come Dancing, and the reviews I’ve received so far have been immensely helpful as I write the next novel about Julia and Jack—a book publishing assistant and a famous British rock guitarist.

Questions or comments? I’d love to hear from you: leslie@lesliewellsbooks.com

My official bio:

Leslie Wells left her small Southern town in 1979 for graduate school in New York City. After receiving her Master’s in English Lit, she got her first job in book publishing. She has edited forty-eight New York Times bestsellers in her over thirty-year career, including thirteen number one New York Times bestsellers. Leslie has worked with numerous internationally known authors, musicians, actors, actresses, television and radio personalities, athletes, and coaches. Leslie blogs about writing tips, New York City, rock and roll, and the Eighties: http://www.lesliewellsbooks.com/blog/

Joe sez: Leslie was great to work with, and I recommend her for anyone looking for a good editor.

I've asked her to keep an eye on the comments if anyone has any questions.

Is the NYT Coverage of Amazon vs. Hachette Really Propaganda?

By now you've seen the NYT Public Editor's piece criticizing her own newspaper's coverage of the Amazon/Hachette situation.

Note to David Streitfeld: see what Margaret Sullivan did? Being a competent reporter, she researched the situation and presented both sides of the story. That means quotes from authors representing both sides, and quotes from the very source (you) she was critical of.

She's an excellent, smart, fair journalist, Mr. Streitfeld. Put your hat in your hand and go thank her. After you have, ask her for some pointers.

As well done as the piece was, Ms. Sullivan did write something that I didn't agree with.

"A pro-Amazon author (Barry Eisler) charges that the paper is spewing propaganda...“propaganda” is a stretch..."

Is it really a stretch? Let's dig a little deeper.

According to Wikipedia:

Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.

Hyperlinked in that definition is "impartial" which leads to a wiki about journalistic objectivity:

Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities.

Also linked is "lying by omission":

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

And "loaded messages":

In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as loaded terms or emotive language) is wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes.

Mr. Streitfeld says his stories have been driven by one value: "newsworthiness". Back to Wikipedia:

Newsworthiness does not only depend on the topic, but also the presentation of the topic and the selection of information from that topic.

Is Streitfeld presenting his topics well? What information is he selecting about the topic? Does it err to the side of journalistic objectivity?

Let's go back to May when the Amazon/Hachette story broke and Streitfeld wrote this piece. Looking at the definitions above, do these quotes from Streitfeld's piece qualify as propaganda?

Streitfeld: Among Amazon’s tactics against Hachette, some of which it has been employing for months, are charging more for its books and suggesting that readers might enjoy instead a book from another author.

Joe sez: Amazon "charging more for its books" actually means Amazon is charging Hachette's suggested retail price. Amazon suggesting that readers might enjoy a book from another author "instead" is unproven. Amazon advertises other authors' books on every book page. This isn't unique to Hachette. Amazon also offers used books for considerably less than the price of the new version, on the very same page. (buy Whiskey Sour for only $0.01!) But where has Amazon said "Buy this instead of this"?The word "instead" is loaded.

Streitfeld: The scorched-earth tactics arose

Joe sez: Scorched-earth? Misrepresentation, and loaded.

Streitfeld: “Outliers” was selling Friday for $15.29, a mere 10 percent discount. On Barnes & Noble, the book was $12.74.

Joe sez: See how the word "mere" is not impartial? No mention that many indie bookstores don't discount at all.

Streitfeld: Amazon raised the price of her book by $8. Then it ran a banner recommending other less expensive diet books.

Joe sez: Instead, how about: "Amazon raised her price to the one her publisher printed on the jacket." But that's not nearly as newsworthy, is it? And pay no attention to the banners recommending other things to buy on every single other product page on Amazon.

Streitfeld: “If you’re a monopolist, you get to be a bully,” said Richard Russo, the Pulitzer-winning novelist and Authors Guild vice president. “

“Like all repressive regimes, Amazon wants to completely control your access to books,” Sherman Alexie said in a Twitter post.

“Given AMZN’s near-monopoly position I think it’s an antitrust violation, but the U.S. antitrust regulators are broken,” Charlie Stross said, also on Twitter.

Joe sez: Yes, Streitfeld is quoting Twitter and not using this rhetoric himself. But where are the Twitter posts from the opposing viewpoint?

I can imagine Streitfeld replying: I didn't write the propaganda posters! I just hung them up where they could be read by millions of people!

Sure, Mr. Streitfeld. Way to be objective. Your piece is loaded with the hot-button words and statements like "monopolist, bully, antitrust, violation, repressive regime, and completely control your access to book", all in reference to Amazon.

Where are the critical quotes about Hachette? Where is the balance?

Let's move on to his next article.

Streitfeld: For months now, Amazon has been trying to put the screws on Hachette, the smallest of the Big Five publishers, by discouraging people from buying its printed books. Amazon’s goal: force Hachette to give it better terms on e-books.

Joe sez: That's the opening sentence. Amazon is putting the screws to the smallest of the big five. Amazon's goal is to force Hachette.

Or, in fairer words, Amazon is negotiating with a company worth ten billion dollars... a company trying to control Amazon's ability to discount ebooks.

See how the truth makes it sound a lot different than Streitfeld made it sound?

Streitfeld: If the 4,000 tweets on my two stories on the topic late last week are anything to go by, Amazon might need to worry more.

Joe sez: How many of those tweets were calling your story biased nonsense?

Maybe he needs to Google "no one I knew voted for Nixon."

Streitfeld has five quotes supporting Hachette. And 13 words from Hugh Howey, offering an opposing viewpoint.

Streitfeld: Independent bookstores broke with tradition in 2012 and decided not to sell books published by Amazon. That was their choice. And if customers chose as a result not to shop there, that was their choice. It’s a free country.

But Amazon is not saying it is dropping all Hachette books.

Joe sez: WTF?

So other bookstores can decide they don't want to sell certain titles, and that's free choice. But Amazon, which is still selling Hachette titles, is behaving worse? How can this be?

Streitfeld: Amazon wants to have it both ways, telling customers it has the book while discouraging them from buying it. This is why some Internet commentators are saying the real issue here is deception as defined by the FTC – “a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment.”

That sounds like bait and switch, something the Federal Trade Commission frowns on as deceptive.

Joe sez: So Streitfeld is suggesting Amazon is using "bait and switch" fraud.

Did Streitfeld look up the definition of bait and switch?

However, no cause of action will exist if the purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised, but aggressively pushes a competing product.

Amazon is still selling Hachette titles. Ergo this cannot be bait and switch.

And let's not even bring up that if a customer found Amazon's shipping times unacceptable, it would take ten seconds and three clicks to buy that same book from another website.

Moving along to the next Streitfeld article.

Streitfeld: “I am a big fan of Amazon and spend as much as $5,000 per year there (not just books),” Ms. Cowie, a Connecticut investor and landlord, wrote me. “But this treatment of Hachette is completely unacceptable. I called Amazon today to let them know that I will boycott them until this Hachette dispute is resolved.”

Joe sez: This entire article is about a landlord boycotting Amazon. Seven hundred words devoted to this single topic, with no mention that Amazon's approval rating has never been higher.

And this qualifies as newsworthiness? This isn't propaganda?

Onto the next one.

Streitfeld: Hachette is holding fast to the traditional publishing system that underpins modern culture.

Joe sez: Who wants Amazon to destroy modern culture? No one, so we must side with Hachette... even though there is no proof Amazon is destroying modern culture.

How things are worded matters so much, doesn't it?

Streitfeld: Authors published by the traditional houses, including Hachette, argue that their livelihood is at stake, and that the world where Amazon is the only gatekeeper would be a deeply problematic one. There have been vows of boycotts.

Joe sez: The first sentence is an appeal to pity fallacy. Their livelihood is at stake! Somebody help them!

The second sentence is just plain shitty journalism. Vows of boycotts? You mean that landlord you wrote about? She's representative of an entire "boycott Amazon" movement? Proof?

I've heard "rumors of bigfoot." Maybe I should mention that in a NYT article and give it some real credibility.

But then Streitfeld immediately lets the other side have some column inches as well, right?

Streitfeld: But Amazon is content to play the long game, as usual, and seems confident that Hachette authors will ultimately grow restive and blame the publisher.

Joe sez: So rather than quote some Amazon supporters, and mention how many author livelihoods Amazon has fostered, Streitfeld avoids the opposing viewpoint altogether.

Streitfeld: When Amazon felt threatened then by publishers demanding a different pricing system for e-books, it had two responses: It removed the “buy” buttons from one publisher, and sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission with accusations of illegal behavior. The buttons were soon restored, but the publishers were hit by a government antitrust suit whose consequences are still being felt.

Joe sez: Sneezing Jesus with an asthma attack! Amazon "felt threatened"? You mean when five publishers illegally colluded to fix prices and force Amazon to accept the agency model? Why would Amazon feel threatened by that?

And where is the mention that Hachette lost the antitrust suit? You know, the one where Hachette was found guilty of collusion and price fixing?

Streitfeld: “I’m shocked that Amazon would do anything to fuel the speculation that once they grow big enough, authors will suffer,” wrote Hugh Howey, an author who is usually a champion of Amazon’s way of doing things.

Joe sez: Way to cherry pick, David.

Howey, like many blogging activists, is pro-author. Saying he is "usually a champion of Amazon's way of doing things" is a cute and sleazy way of calling Howey a sycophant who finally got upset with his lord and master because they did something so heinous.

Of course, anyone who read the Howey piece that Streitfeld quoted would know that isn't the case. But Streitfeld didn't link to that post. He made it seem like Howey gave him that quote directly.

Is that what good reporters do?

Moving on.

Streitfeld: So when Amazon took the rare step of explaining why it decided to hold 5,000 Hachette books hostage

Joe sez: Hostage, huh? Can Wikipedia help?

(A hostage is) someone who is seized by a criminal abductor in order to compel another party such as a relative, employer, law enforcement, or government to act, or refrain from acting, in a particular way, often under threat of serious physical harm to the hostage(s) after expiration of an ultimatum.

Such a serious, hot-button, polarizing word. I had no idea Amazon had a ticking clock ultimatum, or that Amazon was forcing Hachette authors to sell their titles on its website. I thought Amazon was using leverage during a contract negotiation--a negotiation that both parties are willingly entering into--by flexing its retail power.

But to Streitfeld, it is an actual hostage situation. Can't Hachette compel the government to send in a SEAL team to rescue all those poor hostages?

Streitfeld: “The use of its market position to purposely delay delivery of books from selected publishers in order to pressure them to accept their demands for conditions is not only a threatening sign for the book industry, but a clear affront to those who read and buy books,” wrote a group of some 880 independent booksellers and publishers, members of a loose organization that calls itself the Booksellersmeeting in protest against Amazon’s action.

Joe sez: Wait... indie bookstores are criticizing Amazon? And publishers don't like the fact that Amazon is a fierce negotiator? Amazon, who built the world's largest bookstore and invented the ereading device that the majority of readers are using?

My only question is: why wasn't this front page headline news?

Next on the Streitfeld Report: 880 bananas sign a petition accusing monkeys of "trying to eat them". Hold the presses.

And more.

Streitfeld: Amazon has been heavily criticized for using writers as pawns, although it also has its defenders.

Joe sez: And that's the only line about Amazon's defenders in this entire post. The rest of it presents a case against Amazon with no opposing views.

Balanced coverage? Really?

Streitfeld's next journalistic endeavor on this issue (Barry Eisler calls it stenography, not journalism) is simply recounting Stephen Colbert's incorrect stance. No opposing viewpoint at all. The newsworthiness of his story is that Colbert is angry with Amazon.

Why isn't it newsworthy that Colbert is wrong?

Can't this be a story about a rich and famous celebrity media personality with his own TV show who uses it to expose truths about the government and society but is actually using his platform for ill-informed, selfish purposes that are illogical?

More newsworthiness: Amazon Stops Taking Orders for Time Warner Videos.

Both Amazon and Warner declined to comment on what is simply a negotiation between two businesses. But Streitfeld managed to write 600 words about it, fanning the anti-Amazon sentiment fire he's been building.

But wait! Maybe Streitfeld actually had a reason to call this newsworthy.

Streitfeld: “Considering all the press regarding Hachette it seems strange that no one is reporting this,” one commentator wrote on the Amazon forum.

Joe sez: Now I see! An anonymous commenter on an Amazon forum wanted this reported, so the NYT devoted a whole column to it.

I can imagine Streitfeld pitching this story.

INT. NYT OFFICE, DAY

A serious looking David Streitfeld speaks to his editor, Suzanne Spector.

Streitfeld: The haven't been any developments in the Amazon/Hachette dispute in a few days. But I've got a new angle.

Spector: Do tell.

Streitfeld: Lego.

Spector: I'm not even touching you.

Streitfeld: No, not "let go". I mean The Lego Movie. Huge hit, but Amazon isn't selling any pre-orders of the movie. In fact, it isn't taking advance orders on any Warner movies.

Spector: So Amazon not selling something that isn't available is news?

Streitfeld: When you say it that way you make me sound stupid.

Spector: I'm sorry. I know you don't need help in that area.

Streitfeld: Don't you get it? Amazon is doing the same thing that they did to Hachette.

Spector: Sounds like two businesses in negotiation.

Streitfeld: It is. That's what Warner said, before declining to comment.

Spector: So what's the spin? You're all about authors being harmed by Amazon in the Hachette dispute. Are you thinking Lego Batman is being harmed by Amazon now?

Streitfeld: No. That would be silly. Lego Batman is too busy fighting Lego crime to care.

Spector: So who does care, exactly?

Streitfeld: A lone anonymous commenter on an Amazon forum.

Spector: Run it!

...

And Streitfeld's next article.

Streitfeld: For more than six months, Amazon has been trying to wring better e-book terms out of Hachette. The publisher, which is the fourth largest in the United States and whose imprints include Little Brown and Grand Central Publishing, is energetically resisting.

Joe sez: Have those reading this caught on to what Streitfeld is doing?

Amazon is trying to wring better terms. Hachette is resisting.

But all evidence points to Hachette wanting to prevent Amazon from discounting ebooks in order to control its paper oligopoly, and Amazon wanting to keep ebook prices low.

Why is Hachette above reproach, and Amazon the enemy?

The above article is about Amazon offering to compensate authors during the negotiation period. A good thing, right? It's a response to critics, and a move to help authors.

Streitfeld: The proposal “has several real benefits — to motivate us and Hachette to reach an agreement sooner rather than later and to insulate the authors,” said Russ Grandinetti, Amazon’s senior vice president for Kindle content. “It would make things better for readers, too,” he added.

But Roxana Robinson, president of the Authors Guild, dismissed the proposal.

“If Amazon wants to have a constructive conversation about this, we’re ready to have one at any time,” she said in an email. “But this seems like a short-term solution that encourages authors to take sides against their publishers. It doesn’t get authors out of the middle of this — we’re still in the middle.”

Joe sez: As I said in my last blog post, what sort of reporter wouldn't call Robinson on her blatant stupidity?

Actually, Roxana, Amazon's offer DOES get authors out of the middle of this. And authors SHOULD be taking sides against Hachette, for not only getting them into this mess, but also refusing to compensate them as Amazon offered.

But Streitfeld gives Robinson's ridiculous dismissal equal weight to Amazon's proposal. Apparently because the Authors Guild bending over for Hachette isn't newsworthy.

Streitfeld: (Robinson) added. “From our publishers we want a fairer share of e-book revenues; from Amazon we want an end to predatory practices that unfairly threaten their competitors, as well as the continued existence of the printed book.”

Joe sez: So the Authors Guild wants a fairer share of ebook revenues, but Streitfeld doesn't ask what the Guild is doing to reach that objective. Streitfeld also doesn't ask Robinson how Amazon is supposed to negotiate with Hachette without using any leverage. Or how it is Amazon's job to encourage competition. Or how or why Amazon has to ensure that the paper market continues.

This kind of Streitfeldian reporting is ridiculous. What's next?

Today Unicef trucked 25,000 pounds of supplies to Hurricane Schlomo victims in Laurelstan to help with reconstruction efforts.

Opposing this humanitarian effort is the group FuelIsEvil. President Harry Nuts said, "Unicef is using trucks that operate on fossil fuels, which is greatly impacting global warming. If we continue to support massive efforts to help those in need, we'll destroy the earth."

I can't be the only one who sees how silly that is.

Did Streitfeld try to ask any Hachette authors if perhaps they'd like to be compensated monetarily? Is that not a story? Is "Hachette Refuses to Help Its Authors" not a good headline for some reason?

Streitfeld's next article is Amazon, A Friendly Giant as Long as It's Fed.

The point of this blog post is to show that Streitfeld is a propagandist on this Amazon/Hachette dispute. He's clearly anti-Amazon.

But he isn't in this post. He's pretty even-handed, and gives roughly equal time to both sides of the issue.

I'm a blogger, not a reporter. I don't get paid for this. My personality and opinions are supposed to shine through in my posts, so it serves me no purpose to give Streitfeld props when I'm trying to excoriate him. But I will, because I try to be fair.

So nice work, David Streitfeld, on this article. Why aren't they all like that?

Streitfeld returns to anticipated form here. This Streitfeld article was so one-sided, so biased, that Eisler and I fisked it in-depth.

David Steitfeld - An Embarassment to the New York Times

We weren't the only ones that lambasted Streitfeld. Somewhere else on the internet, someone coined the phrase "whale math" to make fun of Streitfeld's ridiculous suggestion that 906 signatures is greater than 7650.

"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."

Streitfeld's article was front page. He devoted it almost entirely to Douglas Preston's petition, and dismissed the opposing petition with 8x as many signatories as a "rambling love letter" to Amazon.

Streitfeld recently defended his whale math to Margaret Sullivan.

When established authors band together against the largest bookseller, he says, “it’s just a great story, period.” And he says that 900 of their signatures mean much more than “a petition that’s open to anyone on the Internet.” To treat them as equal would be false equivalency, he says.

As for his own viewpoint, he says: “I am on no side here. I view my role as opening up these questions.”

Barry Eisler refuted this nonsense in his recent blog post. Go read it.

It's worth noting that one of the earmarks of propaganda is dehumanizing the enemy and creating false images.

So 900 established authors mean much more than 8600 authors and readers. Makes no difference that some of the 8600 signatories on the anti-Hachette petition were authors who outsell many of the 900 signatories. Makes no difference that the anti-Hachette petition included readers, whose opinions don't seem to matter even though the anti-Amazon petition purported to be on behalf of readers.

Instead, Streitfeld points out that more people care about dolphins than books, but somehow doesn't think that's a false equivalency.

Then he says he's "on no side here".

You dismissed a petition with whale math, Streitfeld. Of course you're taking sides.

Next came Streitfeld's Orwell pieces. Hugh Howey obliterates them here and shows Streitfeld was being purposefully disingenuous here.

Have I made my point yet? Is calling Streitfeld a propagandist really stretching it? Or is he clearly spewing propaganda? What's next? How could he possibly raise the anti-Amazon sentiment he's propagating?

Amazon Takes Muppets off the Shelf - by David Streitfeld

That's not a joke. That's an actual Streitfeld newsworthy article.

Streitfeld: Eliminating the preorder button is thus a potent weapon for Amazon. It declined to take orders for Warner Home Video for several weeks at the beginning of the summer. And it has been engaged in a pitched battle with Hachette for months, causing some of the publisher’s authors to see their sales on the site drop by half.

Joe sez: Sweet Jesus on a Cinnamon Roll! Amazon is engaged in nefarious acts of capitalism!

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during that pitch meeting.

INT. NYT OFFICE, DAY

A serious looking David Streitfeld speaks to his editor, Suzanne Spector.

Streitfeld: It's happening again.

Spector: What is? Obama killing people in drone attacks without the approval of Congress? Snowden and Greenwald revealing more about the NSA's illegal surveillance? Greater depth about the CIA enhanced interrogation report?

Streitfeld: Bezos is targeting Muppets.

Spector: Hot damn! You know I submitted your Lego Batman piece to the Pulitzer committee for consideration. This sounds even more newsworthy.

Streitfeld: I'm thinking we run a picture of Jeff Bezos, Photoshopped to look like Bin Laden, shooting a crying Kermit the Frog in the face.

Spector: I like it. Or maybe Fozzy being waterboarded. Or some other enhanced interrogation technique.

Streitfeld: Remember; it's okay to call it torture from now on.

Spector: Oops, yeah. Forgot.

...

Joe sez: I could go on. Streitfeld harping on Amazon's Fire Phone, covering the non-story of Authors United sending a Fed Ex to Amazon's board of directors, Amazon's super-secret Campfire, devoting a full article to the nonsense spouted by Wylie and Le Guin, Amazon's treatment of Paul Ryan...

At what point does the NYT have to admit that this is indeed anti-Amazon propaganda? 

Let's get back to the definition of "newsworthiness".

More recently, the focus similarly remains on political and local issues; however, the news mass media now comes under criticism for over-emphasis on "non-news" and "gossip" such as celebrities' personal social issues, local issues of little merit, as well as biased sensationalism of political topics such as terrorism and the economy. The dominance of celebrity and social news, the blurring of the boundary between news and reality shows and other popular culture, and the advent of citizen journalism may suggest that the nature of 'news' and news values are evolving and that traditional models of the news process are now only partially relevant.

I'll opine that's clearly what is happening in this case.

Amazon is newsworthy in that it is a big, successful corporation, and everyone wants to read dirt about celebrities. When the NYT keeps quoting anti-Amazon morons without fair time for opposing common sense, devotes inches to Amazon's negotiations that harm Legos and Muppets, and throws journalistic integrity out the window, it is behaving more like TMZ than the Grey Lady. 

Perhaps that's why the influence the NYT once had to sway opinion is diminishing. Citizen journalists--bloggers--are the ones who are truly reporting on the Amazon/Hachette dispute. Bloggers are the ones digging for truths, exposing nonsense, taking authorities to task. 

There are no good guys and bad guys in any of this. Only individuals, groups, and companies, acting out of self-interest.

But self-interest can be enlightened. While benefiting yourself, you can also benefit others.

The Authors Guild, Authors United, and Hachette benefit some people, but harm others. The few they do benefit, benefit greatly. But they harm more than they help. 

Amazon has helped more authors earn money than any other company in history. Right now it could be argued that they are harming authors (even though I think the better argument is that Hachette is the company harming authors in this dispute.) The thousands of authors having their pre-order buttons removed is still a long way from the tens of thousands of authors making money via Amazon, many who never made money before (but still not as many people as those who care about whales).

The NYT could be taking Amazon's side occasionally, and it would still sell papers. The story is still compelling when told from the opposite side. Or from both sides equally.

Instead, they have been siding with the status quo old school establishment. Hugh Howey just did a terrific post about how odd this is, compared to how the NYT reports fairly on other topics.

I suppose that why I, and many others, get our publishing news from Howey, and Eisler, and Milan, and Penn, and Gaughran, and Passive Guy, and Mayer, rather than the New York Times.

But if reporters and editors listened to Sullivan, maybe that would change.

The Publishers Guild Strikes Again!

Contrary to what some may think, I don't hate anyone.

There are certain folks in the industry whose actions I don't like. And I'm often vocal about that.

But disliking what someone does or says doesn't mean disliking the person. And disliking how an organization conducts itself doesn't mean I dislike the organization, or the members.

I simply want those members, and their organization, to stop harming authors.

So when I read the latest letter from the Authors Guild to their membership, my immediate reaction was sadness, not anger. Why don't they understand how they are harming the very authors they purport to protect and defend? Why can't they see the side they're taking is the opposite of what the majority of authors actually need?

There is some of Pournelle's Iron Law in play, of course.

There's Bookholm Syndrome.

There's Konrath's Law (folks would rather defend their beliefs to the death rather than admit they might be wrong.)

There's also self-preservation, and the ignorance it breeds. If you listen to an opposing point of view that makes sense, you must confront why you aren't acting on the point of view. So it is much easier to ignore it, or disregard it.
As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Which brings us to Amazon vs. Hachette. Those who need a primer can start reading my blog post from May 24 and just keep reading until present. I link to many relevant posts and articles about the subject.

So what did the latest Authors Guild letter say? I'll repost it here. My comments in regular font, AG ridiculousness in bold italic.

I also want to invite any member of the Authors Guild to post in the comments, or email me, and explain where I'm wrong. I don't hate you, I won't attack you, I won't censor you. My readers and I want to hear you defend yourself, or the Guild. If we can get a dialog going, we can learn from each other.

The Authors Guild’s mission, since its founding in 1912, has been to support working writers.

All working writers? Or just the upper echelon writers who kowtow to legacy publishers?

I have taken the AG to task for this numerous times (often with assistance from Barry Eisler), and we've gotten no response.

Barry and I don't do this because we enjoy shaming authority figures. We truly want the Authors Guild to actually do what it said in that opening sentence: support working writers. But not just 1% of them. All of them.

Here are some previous posts that show bad AG behavior:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/08/for-authors-guild-other-legacy.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2013/12/konrath-and-eisler-vs-richard-russo-and.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2013/04/scott-turow-and-politics-of-cowardice.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/07/must-stop-stupid.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/07/konrath-and-eisler-vs-richard-russo.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/03/barry-joe-scott-turow.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/03/presumed-inane.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/07/so-real-authors-guild-is-amazon.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/05/joes-letter-to-doj.html

Those above examples, and the many more those posts link to, show that the Authors Guild doesn't have the interests of the majority of its members at heart. It cares more about rich authors, and protecting the status quo.

The fact that no member of the Guild has responded to the many accusations that I, and other working writers, have leveled at it, is extremely troubling.

The Guild has consistently opposed Amazon’s recent and ruthless tactics of directly targeting Hachette authors, which have made these authors into helpless victims in a business dispute between two big corporations. 

For the eyerollingenth time, Amazon isn't targeting Hachette authors.

Amazon is negotiating with Hachette. Hachette wants to control the retail price of ebooks, and prevent Amazon from discounting. Hachette illegally colluded with other publishers in order to do this. 

Amazon and Hachette no longer have a contract. Amazon is under no obligation at all to continue to sell Hachette's books. It is certainly under no obligation to sell them while also giving them perks such as warehousing, pre-order buttons, and discounting. 

Can anyone at the Authors Guild, or Authors United, give me an example of how Amazon is supposed to negotiate without any leverage?

A contract involves two parties trying to get what is best for them. This is called business. It isn't targeting authors, or engaging in censorship, or boycotts, or sanctions, or disappearing authors, or any of the other nonsense that AU and AG are whining about.

Authors are indeed being harmed. But they aren't the target. Hachette is the target. Authors are collateral damage, and Amazon has tried, THREE TIMES, to compensate authors during this negotiation. But Hachette doesn't want to do that. Neither does the Authors Guild, or Authors United.

And the Authors Guild wonders why many authors call them the Publishers Guild?

These harmed authors have no contract with Amazon. Amazon doesn't owe them anything. Amazon never promised them anything.

These harmed authors have signed contracts with Hachette. Hachette is supposed to exploit the rights they bought. That's the main reason authors accepted all of those shitty contract terms. Hachette gets those rights for the life of the author plus 70 years, pays low royalties, doesn't allow authors to publish competing works, and in return authors get widespread distribution of their work to sell to as many customers as possible.

But Hachette is unable to come to terms with the biggest bookseller on the planet.

Why aren't these harmed authors angry at Hachette? They're not living up to their end of the deal. Has the Authors Guild even asked Hachette what's going on? Has Authors United?

Let me make this even easier to understand.

I sign a contract with a landscaper to mow my lawn.

The landscaper needs a lawnmower to do this. But the landscaper has been haggling with the lawnmower dealer for eight months, and still hasn't gotten a mower. And all this time, my lawn isn't being mowed.

Do I get mad at the lawnmower dealer?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous. It isn't the dealer who is preventing my lawn from being mowed. It's the landscaper's fault. He promised to cut my lawn, and it isn't getting done. He's the one I signed the contract with.

Now let's take it a step further. I live in a townhouse, so I'm part of a townhome association. It isn't only my lawn that isn't getting mowed, it's all homes in the neighborhood. The townhome association needs to do something. That's what we all pay them to do. They need to step in and fix this.

Should the association:

a) Talk to the landscaper and try to force him to settle his differences with the lawnmower dealer, so he can then cut everyone's lawns like he is contractually obligated to do.

or

b) Ask the government to force the lawnmower dealer to sell its lawnmowers to the landscaper under the terms the landscaper wants.

Why can't the Authors Guild see how ridiculous this situation is?

This action has caused thousands of writers to see a significant drop in their royalty checks. 

I have to point out, yet again, that Amazon offered to compensate authors monetarily during the negotiation period.

Why isn't the Authors Guild pressuring Hachette to accept this offer?

Quote AG prez Roxana Robinson:

“But this seems like a short-term solution that encourages authors to take sides against their publishers. It doesn’t get authors out of the middle of this — we’re still in the middle.”

Actually, Roxana, Amazon's offer DOES get authors out of the middle of this. And authors SHOULD be taking sides against Hachette, for not only getting them into this mess, but also refusing to compensate them as Amazon offered.

How could she say that with a straight face, let alone believe it? And why didn't the reporter who took that quote point out how stupid it is?

Here's another analogy to make this simpler to comprehend.

Godzilla and King Kong are duking it out on the streets of NY. Citizens are getting trampled, and their property is being destroyed.

Godzilla says, "If King Kong agrees, we'll move all the people out of harm's way, and each chip in half for all the damage we cause."

King Kong says, "Nah."

And we should blame Godzilla? Seriously?

The Authors Guild challenges this threat to the literary ecosystem, one that jeopardizes the individual livelihoods of authors.

I'll opine that the business threatening the livelihood of authors is Hachette. It falls on Hachette to make its authors' books available in as many venues as possible. It's failing to do that.

What the Authors Guild could be doing is providing lawyers to unhappy Hachette authors to get them out of their contracts, so these authors could then self-pub.

The Guild started its own initiative to invite governmental scrutiny of Amazon’s outsize market share and anticompetitive practices in the publishing industry. Last summer the Guild prepared a White Paper on Amazon’s anticompetitive conduct, circulating it to the United States Department of Justice and other government entities. As a result of our request for the initiation of an investigation of Amazon, we hosted a meeting with the DOJ in our offices on August 1 so that a group of authors could make their case directly to the government, as the Wall Street Journal reported today.

Buttery Jesus on toast, the Authors Guild was vehemently against the DOJ when they went after five major publishers for collusion against Amazon, now they expect the DOJ will finally see their side of things?

Their side of things amounts to this, a Robert A. Heinlein quote from 1939, which Marc Cabot posted on Passive Guy's blog: 

“There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.”

What the Authors Guild, and Authors United, want the DOJ to do is investigate Amazon for violating antitrust laws. According to the article, Publishers and authors say Amazon has too much power and needs to be reined in.

I agree Amazon has a lot of power in the book world. But is it too much power?

Amazon has stated that, "If we want a healthy reading culture, we have to work hard to be sure books actually are competitive against these other media types, and a big part of that is working hard to make books less expensive."

So it appears Amazon is using its power to lower the price of books.

Yeah, I expect the DOJ to jump all over that. Let us, for a moment, imagine the conversation that took place.

INT. DOJ OFFICE, DAY

A serious-looking DOUGLAS PRESTON, 58, is sitting at a board room table in deep discussion with a DOJ official.

Douglas Preston: Amazon wants to discount Hachette books.

DOJ: And how exactly is this bad? Aren't lower prices good?

Douglas Preston: It's hurting authors.

DOJ: Authors make less money when books sell for less?

Douglas Preston: Actually, authors make more money. Amazon wrote a letter explaining it. 

DOJ: So how are authors being hurt?

Douglas Preston: Right now, Amazon is boycotting Hachette books.

DOJ: It refuses to sell Hachette titles? Do Amazon and Hachette have a contract?

Douglas Preston: They actually don't have a contract. And Amazon is still selling Hachette books.

DOJ: So how is that a boycott?

Douglas Preston: Well, they removed pre-order buttons.

DOJ: So Amazon is refusing to sell books that aren't available?

Douglas Preston: When you say it that way, it makes me sound stupid.

DOJ: I'm not sure we can help with that.

Douglas Preston: The Amazon part?

DOJ: The you sounding stupid part.

Douglas Preston: Amazon also stopped discounting Hachette titles.

DOJ: Weren't you against Amazon discounting titles? Isn't that what this negotiation is about?

Douglas Preston: Stop it. You're confusing me.

DOJ: What exactly do you want to happen here, Mr. Preston?

Douglas Preston: I want Amazon to do what I tell them to.

DOJ: Perhaps you should become a majority stockholder in Amazon, then. Hey, here's a nifty idea--have you tried sending a Fed Ex to Amazon's Board of Directors?

...

Kidding aside, there was some interesting chatter on Passive Guy's blog about this. Is it possible the DOJ will investigate Amazon? Here are some comments I found interesting:

Randall J. Morris: Here’s how the Sherman Act defines a monopoly (which is what the DoJ will look to):

“Monopolization requires (1) monopoly power and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.”

And Wikipedia clarifies it a bit:

“Section 2 of the Act forbade monopoly. In Section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act.”

I think Amazon falls into the category of dominating the market based on their own merit.

Nirmala: The word monopoly generally refers to suppliers not retailers. But there is a word for a retailer with unusually large market power or “buyer power” as it is called: monopsony.

DEFINITION of ‘Monopsony’: A market similar to a monopoly except that a large buyer not seller controls a large proportion of the market and drives the prices down. Sometimes referred to as the buyer’s monopoly.

I found this article (from the Financial Times) which suggests that Amazon does not have much to worry about:

“There lies Amazon’s advantage – it need not form a cartel to squeeze its suppliers because it is already large. With a 30 per cent share of the physical book market in the US and more than 60 per cent of ebooks, it clearly has market power in the antitrust sense. But there has never been a case in US competition law of a single company being declared an illegal monopsonist.

“In the US, the simple use by one company of monopsony power to extract lower prices from suppliers is not illegal. There is general intuition that buyer power means lower prices and lower prices are good,” says Jonathan Jacobson, an antitrust lawyer at Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati in New York.”

Nirmala: Here is another longer exploration of monopsony and anti-trust law.

I am not a lawyer (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) but one thing that stood out in the above link was it suggests that while it is hard to prove harm from a monopsony consisting of one large company, that a collusive monopsony or ogliopsony (a group of buyers that control the market) is by definition illegal as a form of horizontal price fixing.

Now the publishers have already settled the charges that they acted illegally by colluding as suppliers to fix prices. It seems to me that they might also be guilty of setting prices illegally as buyers by colluding to set the royalty rates given to authors at their current low rates. As others have noted, the AG and AU may be opening a can of worms for the publishers by inviting more DOJ examination of the publishing industry.

Joe sez: Big 6 (now Big 5) publishing contracts have been notoriously one-sided in favor of the publishers for decades, and I think a smart lawyer would be able to make a case that they are unconscionable and therefore null and void.

Besides being one-sided, these contracts are all remarkably similar. Same lockstep royalties. Same lousy terms. And before Amazon, authors had no choice, because the publishing oligopoly controlled paper distribution. It was accept the terms or don't get your book into stores. If publishers also fit the definition of an oligopsony, and the DOJ becomes interested in exploring this, the Authors Guild and Authors United may be unwittingly bringing about the downfall of the very industry they're trying to protect.

But let's get back to the AG letter...

The Guild has been working closely with the grassroots group Authors United—founded by Authors Guild Council Member Douglas Preston—which will be making another request to the Department of Justice to investigate Amazon for potential antitrust violations.

So the Guild supports a petition with 1000 signatures, while ignoring the opposing petition with over 8600 signatures.

This is your Authors Guild. Fighting for the privileged status quo at the expense of the unwashed masses.

I've wondered before it the Authors Guild and Authors United know that they're full of hooey, and are actually doing these silly things to get media attention and try to turn public sentiment against Amazon. If that's the case, it isn't working. Amazon's customer approval rating is high, and more and more authors are figuring out that this is all pretty silly.

Our mission is to protect and support working writers. When a retailer, which sells close to half the books in the country, deliberately suppresses the works of certain authors, those authors are harmed, and we speak out. 

They speak out and oppose retailers who harm authors? Where was the Authors Guild when:

Bookstores removed erotica?

PayPal withdrew its services from erotica?

B&N manipulated erotica bestseller rankings?

Bookstores boycotted Amazon published titles?

Amazon removed reviews?

You know what, Authors Guild? All you have to say is, "The system, as it stands, earns some of us a lot of money. So we're going to support the system."

I can't argue with that. Hell, I'd respect that.

But the "support working writers" line is worthy of public ridicule and disdain.

Also, since you apparently don't know it, here's the definition of the word "suppress": verb (used with object)

1. to put an end to the activities of (a person, body of persons, etc.):to suppress the Communist and certain left-leaning parties.
2. to do away with by or as by authority; abolish; stop (a practice, custom, etc.).
3. to keep in or repress (a feeling, smile, groan, etc.).
4. to withhold from disclosure or publication (truth, evidence, a book, names, etc.).
5. to stop or arrest (a flow, hemorrhage, cough, etc.).
6. to vanquish or subdue (a revolt, rebellion, etc.); quell; crush.

Amazon hasn't put an end to the work of certain authors. They haven't done away with it. They haven't repressed it. They haven't withheld it. They haven't stopped it. They haven't vanquished it.

Amazon doesn't have a flotilla of war ships around Hachette's warehouse, preventing books from reaching the outside world.

Amazon hasn't even stopped selling Hachette titles, even though there is no contract that requires it to do so.

And you went to the DOJ with this? Really? When you left, did you hear giggling behind you?

We will continue to oppose any business tactics, from publishers or retailers, that interfere with working writers’ ability to present their products in a fair marketplace and to flourish within their chosen field. 

Continue to oppose tactics from publishers?

Why aren't you opposing Hachette's tactics? Hachette is reportedly delaying negotiations. Hachette is refusing to compensate authors. Have you even been in contact with Hachette? Do you even know what terms Hachette and Amazon are fighting about?

Our goal is to ensure that the markets for books and ideas remain both vigorous and free.

Okay, let me get this straight. You want to ensure the book market remains free by forcing a retailer to sell books according to your rules.

Would you also like to ensure freedom of speech by forcing people to say what you want them to say?

How about you ensure freedom of religion by making everyone go to the church of your choosing?

How can a guild made up of authors write nonsense like this?

That's a question I'd love to have answered. The ball is in your court, Authors Guild. My blog is yours.

Defend yourself.