Archive for the ‘Thoughtabouts’ Category

Concepts of Copyright

January 16, 2016

Concepts of Copyright

You are a reader.

What books you have to read depends, to a large degree, on copyright.

If there was no copyright protection, arguably, a lot of existing books would suddenly become available to you for free.

One of the questions, though, would be how it would affect future books.

Could someone make a living writing books if anyone could reproduce them and sell them with nothing paid to the author?

It is possible.

People might make a point of paying the author to support them.

Many people, though, wouldn’t, of course.

The USA didn’t invent copyright…it was at the least inspired by England’s Statute of Anne. America’s copyright came about 80 years afterwards, but even the idea that copyright belonged in the courts was derivative.

The copyright clause from 1787 explains the reasoning this way:

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

There was a lot of discussion of the clause at that time…and the discussion still goes on today.

The way it is written, it doesn’t say anything about a natural right to the copyright…that authors should own their creations because they created them.

It says it is to “promote the Progress”: I think we can safely say that means to encourage the production of new works.

With that idea, it goes basically like this:

“Authors will not create if they can’t have compensation for having created their works, so we offer them protection for a limited time.”

After that, the works then become available to everybody.

How long should that term be?

That’s where some of my readers, have a very definite idea.

I respect these readers a great deal, and am…impressed by their passion.

I wanted to take a post to explore this a bit more.

First, I do want to bring up one thing that to me seems quite weird.

In much of the world, including the USA, the copyright term is based on the author’s life plus a certain number of years.

I’m open to a lot of things, but I particularly don’t like that one. :)

It seems inherently ageist and unfair, and I’m surprised that there haven’t been legal challenges to it.

It’s simple.

If you publish a book when you are 90 years old, and the copyright term is Life+70 years (which it is in the USA right now), you and your estate will be able to make a lot less money on it than if you published it when you were 20.

People also talk about Life+70 as being designed for the author’s kids to become mature adults.

So, should a childless author get a shorter copyright term?

The other reason I don’t like life+ systems is it makes it much harder to tell if something is in copyright or not. You can’t just look at the publication date and know.

My readers haven’t proposed that change (to a finite term), by the way.

I think a finite term would tend to “promote the progress”. Some books take a considerable amount of time and effort to create, especially some non-fiction. While a 90 year old might have the same passion to create as a 20 year old, the money they could get for the book would be less…because the publisher would have a shorter time to make money.

If there is a finite term, how long should it be?

Ah, there’s the rub. ;)

Proponents of shorter terms (as short as fourteen years) may believe that we have a shared culture. They may point out that, if Shakespeare was still under copyright, poorer people would have less access to it.

I think that’s a reasonable point…I read a lot of public domain works which I got legally for free.

However, those of lesser means can read in-copyright books now…through public libraries and donations, often from the publishers.

When I’ve explored the idea of permanent copyright (which would require amending the Constitution, so it’s very unlikely), I have suggested that, in exchange, greater Fair Use rights would be made available. I would allow the use of copyrighted books for scholastic study without compensation, for one thing.

Let’s ignore permanent for now.

What would be different if copyright was fourteen years versus if it was fourteen hundred years?

With the fourteen year term, you would be able to read a book published today for free in about a decade and a half.

That sounds good…but it seems obvious to me that publishers would have to do something different to make anything like the same amount of money they make now.

One option would be to charge a lot more money for the book. If a book can sell for, oh, one-fifth the amount of time it can now (at least, sell with compensation to the publisher), one could hypothetically charge five times as much for it to make the same amount of money.

That, of course, doesn’t work very well. :)

You wouldn’t sell the same number of copies.

Let’s go with $10 as a price for a new e-book novel (you can pay a lot less than that, of course, but we are really looking at the traditional publishing model right now). If the book cost $50, would as many people pay for it?

Nope.

Would piracy also increase?

Very likely.

Licensing might also tighten. We have what I consider to be quite generous licensing terms right now from the Kindle store. Typically, six people on the account can be reading the same book at the same time for one purchase price (what you are purchasing is a license). You could have 100 people (or more) on the account, and they could all read the same book…just, usually, not all at the same time.

If the rights are for a much shorter time, I would expect them to want to crack down on “serial reading”, where one person (or set of people) read the book, then another person does. I expect that my descendants can read my ebooks…clearly, with a fourteen year term, that’s not going to happen as much the same way. They’ll read the books for free.

As a purchaser, the value of the book goes down considerably if it’s only good for a relatively limited time…why not wait?

The value comes in reading it before other people, and while it is “hot”.

It becomes a luxury.

The value has gone down in terms of multiple readers with shorter terms, which could drive down the price, but the prestige has gone up, which could drive up the price.

Read the current Stephen King for $100, or one from the year 2000 for free? There would be people who would pay the $100, but there would be fewer of them.

I want to return at this point to the purpose of copyright.

I would say there are two basic conceptions here:

  • It is a business license
  • It is to protect a natural right

As a business license, it makes sense that it can be for a limited time. The only considerations, really, have to do with money. Authors are granted a limited term to have exclusive rights to the work so they can make money on it to encourage them (and others) to write more works, which benefits the culture.

After that limited time, the book becomes the property of the public, and becomes part of our shared culture.

The “natural right” concept says that the author created the work, and has a natural right to control its use. In that case, it seems to me that an unlimited copyright is a reasonable possibility.

One argument against the natural right means permanent argument is that the natural right only exists for the creator, and some extend it to the creator’s children. That creator’s children part supposedly explains life+70: seventy years is a reasonable approximation of life expectancy, so it means that if an author writes a book, dies right away, and has an infant child, that child can be supported by the book throughout its expected life. I find that a pretty unlikely scenario, personally.

Some people don’t like that properties end up under the control of a corporation: they say it then becomes “profits in perpetuity”, and that it likely is no longer benefiting the author or the author’s  descendants.

They wouldn’t want Disney or Sony determining how Mark Twain is used by the world, for example.

They also see it as benefiting an entity which has done nothing to deserve it.

The author, though, chose to license the rights to the publisher. If the author has control over the work, why isn’t that something they should be able to control? The longer the copyright term, the more potential value to the company, the more the likely purchase price will be. Authors should theoretically make more money when the copyright is longer, in terms of licensing fees.

It also seems to me that Disney has done a great deal of work on perpetuating the value of Mickey Mouse. The example of Mickey is often brought up in copyright discussions. We go back to Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon (1928). The Disney company has undeniably lobbied to have the copyright terms extended when Steamboat Willie’s protected end time was nigh. A 1998 act is sometimes colloquially referred to as the “Mickey Mouse Act”.

I’m not talking about those lobbying efforts as things Disney has done with Mickey…although that does show time and effort.

They have carefully promoted the character.

They have built on it over time.

Anybody who doesn’t think the Disney corporation is a large factor in why we even think the rights to Steamboat Willie are valuable…well, I’d be interested in hearing the arguments that without the Disney corporation, Mickey Mouse would be equally as valuable today as it would be if copyright had run out on Steamboat Willie in 1942 (or 1956…the original 14 year copyright term was renewable once).

Another argument in favor of earlier public domain status is that it allows more creative works to happen. People can then build upon the earlier works.

Two iconic examples of that are West Side Story (based on Romeo and Juliet) and Forbidden Planet (based on The Tempest).

The argument goes that those wouldn’t exist if the original Shakespeare works weren’t in the public domain.

I’m not convinced of that.

If the creators of those works had to license the originals, would that have made been an impossible hurdle or unreasonable burden?

Sure, it would have been up to the rightsholder. If the hypothetical “We Bought Shakespeare Corporation” didn’t like science fiction, or didn’t want the social commentary of West Side Story to happen, they could have refused the rights.

That is a perfectly legitimate argument: that’s a point I understand, about not wanting a limited group to control how something which is part of our shared culture to be used.

I also think it isn’t as simple as to say that when something is in-copyright, creativity is stymied.

Let’s say you wanted to take the beloved Archie Andrews characters (Archie, Betty, Veronica, Jughead, and so on), and put them into a violent zombie comic. That would be up to the publisher…and Archie Comics allowed just that with the popular and critically-acclaimed

Afterlife with Archie (at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)**

If Archie had been in the public domain, anyone could have created an Afterlife with Archie type comic, of course…but how many people would ever have seen it? Since it was under license (being in-copyright) to a major distributor, it could get comic book store distribution…and the company spent money on promotion and quality control.

What about Superman flying or the existence of Kryptonite? Both brought to the company from outside, both approved by the company (see my article, xxy).

Remember, also, that in the USA, parody is protected by copyright. There are also some rights around “fanfic” (fan created fiction), at least where characters are not trademarked. What allows both of those? Fair Use. I do think that balancing longer copyright terms with greater Fair Use provisions is a possible balance.

Stepping away from the corporations for a minute, another argument I hear is that people don’t want there to be a class of people who are well off through inheritance, in this case, inheritance of intellectual property rights. That’s an interesting question of social engineering. My own feeling on that is that it should apply in a similar manner to other property rights. If intellectual property rights have limited inheritance, so should other property rights. I’m sure there are people who would agree with that:  I’ve seen serious proposals for a 100% death tax: you die, and your property goes to the government, which then uses it to for the public good…including taking care of orphans, presumably.

I think that sort of discussion is beyond the scope of this post. ;)

Oh, I also hear people say that authors are only able to create their works because of the society in which they grew up, and that the audience for their works exists because of society. The public paid for their educations, and the readers can read because of the school system. When people say that, I wonder…do they think someone who immigrated here as adult and then wrote a book should get a longer copyright term, because they don’t have to “reimburse” society for the public schooling? ;) Do we really educate people only as a loan for the good they can do society, and they should have to pay it back? What if someone calculated the costs of their education, then paid the government that money, then wrote a book…should they be entitled to longer copyright terms?

I’ve gone on quite long enough, but I do want to make one more point.

The 14 year term came about in 1787.

What was the intent of that length?

Presumably, it had something to with exploitation of the value of the created work, and the point at which it would benefit the public for it to be free to copy

I would suggest that neither of those are the same today.

There are so many more revenue streams today than there were in 1787.

One of the most significant is movie/TV adaptation.

Publishers, and authors, can make a great deal of money from licensing the rights for the kind of media adaptations which just didn’t exist in 1787.

If the copyright term was fourteen years, how often would a movie or television studio simply choose to wait fourteen years before spending significant money on the production? A book might not become popular for a few years after publication, which makes it a shorter time from interest to screen.

Of course, on the flip side, how many movie studios would pay $200m to make a blockbuster movie…when it would be free to distribute in fourteen years? I’m guessing you could say good-bye to movies like Star Wars:  The Force Awakens and Jurassic World  if the copyright term was significantly shorter.

At any rate, this is all a very complex topic. I’m not decided on anything (although, as I mentioned, I really don’t like life+ terms). There are people who have it as a matter of faith (they believe they will never change their minds) that copyright terms should be short, or that there should be no copyright, or that it should be permanent. I’m not one of those folks.

I know, as a writer myself, I’m probably emotionally prejudiced in favor of longer terms. I do feel like I should own my creations (although I 100% accept the idea of Fair Use, including where my own works are concerned). I can set aside emotional prejudice, though: I suppose that’s one reason I’ve been on three juries in the past ten years. ;)

I’m very interested in what you think about this. I have no doubt many of my regular readers are skipping this one, and waiting for something lighter in the next post…which is okay by me. Others of you are deeply interested and will want to express your opinions to me and my readers. Feel free to do so by commenting on this post.

 

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) By the way, it’s been interesting lately to see Amazon remind me to “start at AmazonSmile” if I check a link on the original Amazon site. I do buy from AmazonSmile, but I have a lot of stored links I use to check for things.

** A Kindle with text-to-speech can read any text downloaded to it…unless that access is blocked by the publisher inserting code into the file to prevent it. That’s why you can have the device read personal documents to you (I’ve done that). I believe that this sort of access blocking disproportionately disadvantages the disabled, although I also believe it is legal (provided that there is at least one accessible version of each e-book available, however, that one can require a certification of disability). For that reason, I don’t deliberately link to books which block TTS access here (although it may happen accidentally, particularly if the access is blocked after I’ve linked it). I do believe this is a personal decision, and there  are legitimate arguments for purchasing those books. In this particular case, text-to-speech is not available, but that will be due to a technical issue. The “text” is actually part of the illustrations, and not available to TTS.

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Does the e-book sales plateau represent the digital divide?

January 5, 2016

Does the e-book sales plateau represent the digital divide?

This

American Libraries article by Alan S. Inouye

is one of the most insightful and interesting articles I’ve ever read on the current state and future of e-books.

It gets answers from four experts to a series of questions…and I found each of them worth reading.

I’ll pause for a moment for you to make the emotional commitment to read that article.

Ready? Good. ;)

I wanted to focus on one inference I drew from what was said.

After the introduction of the Kindle in 2007, the growth in the e-book market (which had been, to use a technical term, teeny tiny before that), was remarkable.

It was faster than the growth of some other digital media markets.

I thought that e-books would clearly dominate within about five years (and I speak as a former manager of a brick-and-mortar bookstore, and someone with something like 10,000 paperbooks on shelves in my home).

I was wrong…but I may also have been right.

First, I have to say that we may not really know how many books being obtained in the USA are e-books. The issue is that it was and still is much easier to tell how many books are sold by the traditional publishers (tradpubs) than it is by indies (independents).

Many, possibly most, e-books sold by independents are sold through Amazon…and Amazon is notably reticent to release actual sales figures.

It may be that we are able to measure reasonably well the e-books sold by tradpubs versus the p-books (paperbooks) they sell, and that we simply aren’t able to reliably measure the e-books sold by indies. The USA Kindle store typically averages adding well over a thousand titles a day…and a tiny percentage of those are from tradpubs.

However…

Let’s go from the assumption that our ability to measure that hasn’t gotten significantly worse, and that e-book sales have actually slowed down…maybe even having plateaued (stabilized).

Why would that have happened?

I hadn’t really thought about it this way before reading the article, but maybe what happened is that the market of serious readers (one person in the article refers to them as “core readers”) has overwhelmingly converted to e-books…and casual readers haven’t.

That makes sense.

E-books, especially in the beginning, required an investment.

People tended to buy a fairly expensive piece of hardware (the first Kindle was around $400) on which to read them.

Now, that’s less true.

You can buy a

Fire, 7″ Display, Wi-Fi, 8 GB – Includes Special Offers, Black (at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)

for about $50, and you can get the

Kindle, 6″ Glare-Free Touchscreen Display, Wi-Fi – Includes Special Offers (at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)

EBR (E-Book Reader) for about $80.

You can (and many people do) read e-books on SmartPhones…and while those aren’t inexpensive, many people feel they are essential. Home refrigerator/freezers aren’t inexpensive…but once people had them, it created a market for convenience foods that weren’t individually expensive, and has very probably affected some markets like restaurants, milk delivery, and local grocery stores/farmers’ markets.

What may have happened is that the serious readers were more willing to lay out for the devices, and more willing to try e-books.

The advantage of individual e-books being cheaper than p-books (which has generally, although not universally, been the case) helps people who get more books more. Let’s just say you could save $4 per e-book. If you bought a hundred books, you saved the $400 for the first Kindle…and serious readers could easily do that in a year. A casual reader, who might buy, oh, let’s call it four books in a year, needs 25 years to break even.

The same thing goes for the advantage of storage. As I mentioned, I have quite a few p-books…we dedicate a room in the house to be a floor-to-ceiling library. Many casual readers keep very few books in the house, and never take more than one book out with them when, for instance, running errands. They just don’t get the same advantage.

Could it be that the roughly 25% of the measurable market of e-books sales might represent perhaps 90% of the purchases of serious readers?

Yes, I think that’s possible…and if true, would explain the plateau.

Does that mean e-book growth is done?

Nope.

I agree with people in the article who think that e-book growth will rebound.

For one thing, there are those SmartPhones, and increasingly, tablets. If reading a book is happening on the same screen where you do everything else, it becomes more likely for casual readers.

For another, casual readers may slowly start to convert to e-book sales.

One of the reasons casual readers buy books is to give them as gifts.

Currently, the perception is that a physical book is a better gift than an e-book.

Over time, that may change.

When people’s sense of what serious readers do is to read e-books, that may be what people give.

Here’s another reason:

Casual readers buy books because of their kids needing them for school, and for educational purposes.

When schools inevitably switch more strongly to e-books (inevitable because of cost, including loss and damage), kids’ parents won’t be knocking on a bookstore’s door just after closing for a book needed for a book report the next morning (I literally had that happen).

E-books are better for education…and they will keep getting better.

I know, that’s an unusually definitive statement for me.

I think, though, it’s hard to argue that having a built-in dictionary isn’t better for learning than needing a separate dictionary.

That doesn’t mean stand-alone dictionaries don’t have value…I read an unabridged one cover to cover when I was a kid. They have value, but especially for a disadvantaged child, they may not be readily available. E-books mean that everybody has a dictionary, and that they are used in context.

There are also the links to the web (including Wikipedia, but not limited to it), and features like “mentioned in this book”, which can facilitate additional reading (including from diverse viewpoints on the same topic).

So, I think that slowly, three of the main drivers for casual readers will convert to a much greater degree to e-books:

  • Gifts
  • Education
  • Sporadic personal reading (such as on vacation)

In the meantime, though, I think it’s reasonable to be concerned that e-books heighten the digital divide.

I’ve been a big proponent of e-books broadening reading access, and I do think that’s true. Someone of little means can read the great literature of the world for free. They may need to go to the library to have access to a computer, but for public domain books (those not under copyright protection), they will have very broad access. Many people have some sort of internet access available to them at home, or at school. We see this especially in “developing” countries, where e-books have been used to get literature to places where getting p-books would be impractical (see, for example, WorldReader.org).

In the next few years it may be true that serious readers with more means may have access to more traditionally published books than those without those resources…and that they will access to more research tools.

It’s not a big concern of mine, and it is an argument to try to speed up the adoption of e-books in those casual readers.

It is, though, interesting…

Summing up, I may have incorrectly predicted the e-book market based on me and readers like me, and missed the prediction for the broader market where adoption may have been much slower.

What do you think? Do e-books heighten or lessen the digital divide? Is there actually an e-book sales plateau, or is it just a case of measurability? If there is, is it because of serious readers having converted to a much greater degree than casual readers? Was there anything else in the American Libraries article which especially struck you? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

The three tiers of readers

November 15, 2015

 The three tiers of readers

There was a time when only the rich could read.

Literacy was actively limited. It was illegal to teach some groups of people to read.

For example, there is this bill from 1830 in North Carolina:

A Bill to Prevent All Persons from Teaching Slaves to Read or Write, the Use of Figures Excepted (1830)

Books were also very expensive: rare, hand-crafted items.

Certainly, Gutenberg was one of the most important changes, in the mid-15th Century. The new tech made books more easily reproduced, and more widely distributed.

The early 19th Century, with the Industrial Revolution, brought a new level of literacy and leisure…cheap books in “low brow” genres flourished: penny dreadfuls in England, and later (into the early 20th Century), dime novels in the USA.

Another major change came in the 1930s with the rise of paperbacks: inexpensive, “mass market” versions of the same books that came out in relatively expensive hardbacks. That was the notable change from the penny dreadfuls and dime novels: while mass market paperbacks did have genre novels, it was also possible to read the same content as the upper class.

In the 21st Century (especially following the release of the Kindle in 2007), e-books further democratized books. Super low cost distribution transformed publishing from being mostly in the hands of a few companies that could afford to develop and distribute p-books (paperbooks) to something anyone could do.

However…

Those traditional publishers (tradpub) still exist, and still have a concentration of power. There is still prestige in owning books. As reading competes with other forms of entertainment, it hasn’t simply become what television was before “pay TV”, where almost everyone could see the same shows.

I’m seeing indications of a three-tiered market for books. This is not something I’m saying definitively exists right now. It’s a hypothesis for what may be happening, and how things may develop.

If things do turn out to follow this pattern, it will matter to you as a reader.

Publishers and retailers would develop for and market to the different tiers differently. Since advertising is now very channeled (different people see different things), you might not even be aware of a book you would otherwise want to read.

What I’m going to do next is lay out the characteristics of the three tiers of readers. I’m also going to poll you, to see which one you think you might be. I also want to be clear…you could be more than one, but my guess is that one of them will be the strongest affiliation for you.

Top Tier

  • Price point: ten dollars and up
  • Buying window for new releases: right away
  • How much they read: usually reading one book, but might take a couple of weeks or more to read a novel
  • High end brand user: more likely to use an Apple tablet than an Amazon one, but may own a Kindle Voyage or other top of the line EBR (E-Book Reader) in addition
  • Authors: John Grisham, Michael Connelly
  • Publishers: the tradpubs, limited release editions from specialty houses
  • Discovery: old media, especially magazines and newspapers, like the New York Times
  • Summary: doesn’t compromise, likes paying more to get a book right away

Middle Tier

  • Price point: under ten dollars, but still costing something. $1.99, $2.99, $0.99, $4.99 are popular
  • Buying window for new releases: waits for them to go on sale, but will likely read a favorite author within a year or two of release
  • How much they read: usually at least a book a week, may be more than that
  • Doesn’t worry about having the very best brand: wants value for the dollar. Still wants functionality. Reads e-books on an Amazon device, but more likely to have a Paperwhite than a Voyage
  • Authors: Marko Kloos, Jana Aston
  • Publishers: many independents through Kindle Direct Publishing and other sources; some tradpubs, but mostly backlist and frontlist on sale
  • Discovery: the Amazon website, Goodreads, word of mouse (blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media)
  • May use subsers (subscription services, like Kindle Unlimited ((at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*))
  • Summary: committed reader, but money matters. Willing to experiment to save some money

Lower Tier

  • Price point: almost always zero (including getting gifts from others)
  • Buying window for new releases: release day doesn’t really matter
  • How much they read: constantly, but quite likely to abandon books before they are finished. Doesn’t waste time on a book they don’t like
  • Reads on a SmartPhone,  a computer, or a cheap tablet. May have an inexpensive EBR, maybe one they got as a gift. Doesn’t have the latest generation
  • Authors: people you’ve never heard of (and possibly they’ve never heard of), but also a lot of the classics which are free because they are public domain
  • Publishers: indies, especially authors who self-publish
  • Discovery: digs around for book bargains, uses Project Gutenberg, Twitter, free book forums, the public library. Update: reader Kacey Llano made the excellent point that some Lower Tier readers will use the same discovery as the Upper Tier readers. They’ll find out about a newly published, frontlist, tradpub book…and then go to the public library to get it (or to go on a waiting list for it). They still aren’t directly spending the money for the book
  • Summary: passionately committed to reading, but doesn’t care about the status of having read the latest book. It’s not so much about what you read: it’s the reading itself that matters

Those are my initial ideas on it. I’m interested in your feedback on it, which may help to refine it. For example, I think the top tier readers may use subsers…and may have several subscriptions, but don’t end up using them very much. Middle tier readers may use the public library.

Let’s do the poll next…if you think you are equally two or more tiers, you can choose more than one.

Update: reader Kacey Llano asked me if this was about your reading habits or how much you spend, in terms of choosing a tier. It’s about how much you spend. My whole thinking on this is about the marketing of the books. If you get the books from the public library, the publisher has to market to the library, not directly to you. Certainly, they could try to get public buzz to influence a library to buy a license, but I think they would be more likely to market to top tiers and directly to libraries (or library suppliers).

 

Now, what do you think? Am I underestimating how much Top Tier readers read? Are there other strata you would suggest? What other characteristics identify these three? Is it too soon to figure out where marketing is going to go for e-books? If these are right, how do you see it affecting publishers, retailers, and readers? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

 

Read the book before you see the…play

November 10, 2015

Read the book before you see the…play

When an author writes a book, one possible source of future income is an adaptation.

Most people think of movies, or TV shows, and certainly, there can be significant money there.

When we look at the top ten US all-time box office champs, it turns out that not that many of them are based on books (if we don’t include comic books/graphic novels).

  1. Avatar (original)
  2. Titanic (original: based on a real event)
  3. Jurassic World (ultimately based on a book)
  4. Marvel’s The Avengers (based on comic books)
  5. The Dark Knight (based on comic books)
  6. Star Wars – The Phantom Menace (original)
  7. Star Wars (original)
  8. Avengers Age of Ultron (based on comic books)
  9. The Dark Knight Rises (based on comic books)
  10. Shrek 2 (ultimately based on a book)

It occurred to me, though: many of the longest-running Broadway shows (and other plays) are based on books.

Let’s take a look at those longest-running Broadway shows:

  1. The Phantom of the Opera (based on a book)
  2. Chicago (based on another play based on a reporter’s writings)
  3. Cats (based on a book)
  4. The Lion King (based on a movie)
  5. Les Misérables (based on a book)
  6. A Chorus Line (original)
  7. Oh! Calcutta (original)
  8. Mamma Mia! (based on songs)
  9. Beauty and the Beast (ultimately based on a book)
  10. Rent (based on an opera)

As you can see, a lot more plays are based on books…if I kept going, I’d run into more. :)

Why is this?

I think attending a play is more like reading a book than when you go to a movie.

Reading is largely imagination (even though they do cheat with things like italics and bold). ;)

So are plays.

They are inherently pretty unreal…you can see a lot of things when you are in a theatre (all the time), that requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

Now, movies also are unreal…the way that time tends to jump around, for instance.

I suppose one could also argue that movies are two dimensional, and plays are real people…so plays are closer to reality.

I think that you are almost always aware that the stage actor is not actually the character…I think you are more actively engaged watching a play.

That’s just an idea, though. :)

I do like the idea of it being reality based. Plays can be very representational, unrealistic. They can compress time, and audiences accept that.

If a movie has a significant time jump (forward or backward) they usually explicitly explain what happened.

What do you think? Is watching a play more like reading a book than watching a movie is? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) By the way, it’s been interesting lately to see Amazon remind me to “start at AmazonSmile” if I check a link on the original Amazon site. I do buy from AmazonSmile, but I have a lot of stored links I use to check for things. 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Has Kindle e-book development stagnated?

October 13, 2015

Has Kindle e-book development stagnated?

Thanks to a reader (if you’d like to be credited in the blog, just let me know) who alerted me in a private e-mail to this intriguing essay in Aeon:

Digital books stagnate in closed, dull systems, while printed books are shareable, lovely and enduring. What comes next? by Craig Mod

It’s well written, and both deeply researched in some areas and based on personal experience. I recommend reading it.

That said, I don’t have the same assessment of the situation that the author does.

The basic premise is this:

” As our hardware has grown more powerful and our screens more capable, our book-reading software has largely stagnated.”

One explanation given:

“It seems as though Amazon has been disincentivised to stake out bold explorations by effectively winning a monopoly (deservedly, in many ways) on the market.”

I think the first question we have to ask is if this is limited just to EBRs (E-Book Readers)…that is, not tablets like the Fire. We are continuing to see development on the tablets, including Amazon’s new Word Runner featured. That’s even available on the

Fire, 7″ Display, Wi-Fi, 8 GB – Includes Special Offers, Black (at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*) $49.99

It shows you a book one word at a time, in the middle of the screen. There’s a lot more to it than that, but it should greatly increase your reading speed. You can read more about that here:

The new feature I most want to try on Fire tablets

That’s a recent innovation which Amazon arguably didn’t have to do…and it certainly isn’t stagnant.

It was, perhaps, to respond to the competition of Spritz, which does a similar thing.

The fact that there is competition, though, tends to refute the premise of Mod’s essay.

What about those EBRs? Does there continue to be development there? I do want to say that I assume the author is only talking about EBRs. The article mentions “backlit” Kindles, but I think that may be confusion with the Paperwhite’s (and later the Voyage’s) frontlighting…many people confuse those two.

We’ve gotten some typography changes recently, and we got Page Flip (a way to look ahead in the book without losing your place) not that long ago.

Those don’t feel as amazing as some of the earlier things we got…but should we expect that?

One reason why some people consider paper books one of the greatest technological innovations is how little they have had to change since our basic form factor came into being.

Sure, paperbacks were a change, starting in the 1930s…but they weren’t radically different from hardbacks. They certainly weren’t more different from hardbacks than the Voyage is from the first generation (2007) model.

For more on the history of books, see the

ILMK E-books Timeline

Maybe Kindle books have changed that much in the past few years…because they already do pretty much what we want them to do.

That’s not to say that the system can’t be improved!

We continue to make progress…but I do think, for example, that we could still have much better management of the books on the Amazon website. It would be nice to be able to see which books are on which devices, for example.

The author of the essay has a couple of suggestions, and I do think they are intriguing.

However, I also suspect the author’s desires aren’t the same as those of the majority readers.

Look, I’m weird…and I know it. ;)

My Significant Other got me one of my favorite t-shirts. It says, “Nobody’s Target Market”.

I’m not sure, though, that Craig Mod has quite that same sense of self awareness.

Mod is very into book design. So into it that a great story in the article is about Mod buying a travel guidebook because of the way it was constructed…even with no intent to use it.

I don’t think most people care that much.

That doesn’t mean they can’t appreciate a great design, but my guess is that the majority of people are happy to be able to get right into the text of a book…they don’t need the sensual experience of drawing a beautifully crafted volume being drawn from an equally painstakingly designed slipcase.

Now, would I rather have my Kindle books start at the cover, rather than Chapter 1? Yes, I’d like that option.

I don’t miss the physicality of a p-book (paperbook), though.

I love owning 100 year old books, sure…I have several of those. I feel like I am in a special presence when I see a vintage book.

For my day to day reading? Give me an invulnerable digital file with increasable text, please.

I was a bit amused to be reading the article through the medium of text-to-speech in my car, after using the “Send to Kindle” extension for Google Chrome (which then let me use my Kindle Fire HDX 7).

That’s a big improvement for me.

Do I think that e-books wipeout p-books?

Nope…vinyl is still around for records, despite its relative inefficiency.

My best guess is that it is not an unreasonable model for the future for publishing: the vast majority of reading being done on e-books, with p-books being what they were before mass manufacturing: luxury items.

We aren’t close to that, yet.

Craig Mod and I have different ideas about what people tend to value in books, and what the future will bring.

That’s a good thing. :)

Again, I recommend the piece as evocative, thoughtful, and well-written.

Thanks again to my reader for the heads-up!

What do you think? Has Amazon diverted resources from Kindle book development to other things? If they have, is that an opening for someone else to take part of the market? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) By the way, it’s been interesting lately to see Amazon remind me to “start at AmazonSmile” if I check a link on the original Amazon site. I do buy from AmazonSmile, but I have a lot of stored links I use to check for things. 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Stephen King given National Medal of Arts

September 11, 2015

Stephen King given National Medal of Arts

One of the defining characteristics of being a geek, and I’ve been a proud geek for a long time, is being an outsider.

Geeks aren’t supposed to be the cool kids, and even more definitely, they shouldn’t be recognized for creating and enjoying “high brow”, quality art.

Let me be clear: I don’t mean to say that’s the right attitude, but it’s what we used to think people think.

Of course, it’s never really been true.

Those authors who undeniably are considered to be the “classic” authors have often created geek-friendly works.

Shakespeare? Fairies, ghosts, and witches.

Dickens? The work people know best well and has been most parodied (including by me…A Kindle Carol) is a ghost story…with time travel.

Jack London? Post-apocalyptic fiction (The post-apocalyptic fiction of…) and past life cave people  (Before Adam).

However, the literati who look down their noses at books with spaceships and telepathy could always say that those were not the main works of these authors.

It would be very hard to make an argument that Stephen King (at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*) is not first and foremost a genre author.

That’s why it feels like a milestone in geeks getting respect that the horror author was given a National Medal of Arts yesterday by the President.

National Endowment for the Arts official page

The citation reads:

“Stephen King for his contributions as an author. One of the most popular and prolific writers of our time, Mr. King combines his remarkable storytelling with his sharp analysis of human nature.  For decades, his works of horror, suspense, science fiction, and fantasy have terrified and delighted audiences around the world. (Bangor, ME)”

Looking back through a list of the recipients, I didn’t see a lot of people who would be found primarily in the science fiction, fantasy, and/or horror sections of a bookstore:

  • Ralph Ellison
  • Eudora Welty
  • Howard Nemerov
  • Robert Penn Warren
  • Saul Bellow
  • Czelaw Milosz
  • John Updike
  • William Styron
  • Maurice Sendak (yes, geek-friendly…although putative children’s books feel like they have more latitude to employ fantasy elements and still be respected)
  • Philip Roth
  • Maya Angelou
  • Ray Bradbury (so King’s award is not unprecedented for a primarily genre author)
  • Rudolfo Anaya
  • Beverly Cleary
  • Stan Lee (absolutely, undeniably geek friendly…one of the icons. The award, though, wasn’t really for prose writing)
  • Louis Auchincloss
  • N. Scott Momaday
  • Ernest Gaines
  • Tobias Wolff (also awarded this year, the same as Stephen King)

I think

Stephen King’s

The Stand (at AmazonSmile*)

has a legitimate case for being the “great American novel”…but I don’t expect the President and the National Endowment for the Arts to think so.  ;)

That certainly may just show my own prejudice. I grew up with it being a matter of social shame to be a geek.

That’s not the case now.

Look at the top grossing movies, the most popular televisions shows…undeniably, mainstream audience grok the geek.

In those visual media fields, respected awards have been coming more and more to geek-friendly works and artists. Oscar winners feel no concern about appearing in a fantasy/science fiction/horror movie (or, even more shocking, TV show) these days.

However, for the types of people who would even sneer at the idea of watching a video, to recognize the authors of books with vampires and robots? That feels new.

I wouldn’t say that we are entirely there…and, I’m not convinced that geeks really want to be there.

What do you think? Is there still a stigma in being a “genre author”? When I say “genre”, do you think geeky, or do you include romance and Westerns, among others? Are works with fantasy/science fiction elements inherently less “honorable” than works with more realistic settings? If you think that the acceptability has changed, why do you think that is? Is it just the popularity? Should that influence merit awards? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Writing children

August 17, 2015

Writing children

Writing children isn’t easy.

Not writing for children, although that isn’t as easy as many people seem to think. ;)

Adults writing child characters often make the same mistakes.

Sometimes, the kids come across as cartoons, in the sense that they are sort of symbolic of a child, rather than trying to accurately display the way children think.

As I’ve said before, I love the Oz books…but Dorothy Gale doesn’t really read to me like an actual child.

There may be some cultural differences there: given when the book was written, and Dorothy’s agrarian enculturation (as you can tell, I might have more in common with the Woggle-Bug), it’s arguable that it would be harder for me to relate directly to Dorothy…but the same goes for all of the children in Oz books for me, from Trot to Button Bright.

Mark Twain is another favorite of mine…but I also don’t find Becky, Tom, and Huck, to be particularly realistic.

Maybe I tend to like books that aren’t exact replicas of my reality. :)

There are also times when people write kids just like they are adults. They aren’t…even though they are diverse, just like adults, they still have a different perspective…and not because they tend to be so much shorter than adults. ;) I’ve always said that there are times when a pre-conversational child is standing there crying just from the realization that, “I’m only two feet tall!” ;)

Still, there are some people I think write children really well…and I still think they write great books.

I’ve just re-read

To Kill a Mockingbird (at AmazonSmile*: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)

and then read

Go Set a Watchman (at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)

(you can read my review and analysis ((so SPOILER ALERT)) here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1362361030)

and Harper Lee is definitely one of those people who write children well…and I consider TKaM to be one of the truly great novels.

Stephen King is another one…I’d say particularly in

It (at AmazonSmile*)

That’s not to say that I consider It in to be in the same stratum as TKaM…I don’t (although I think The Stand is way up there). It’s that I think the writing of the children feels realistic to me.

One more, and one who is certainly not as well known as the other two: Derek Swannson, particularly with the first book in the Crash Gordon series.  You can read my

review of Crash Gordon and the Mysteries of Kingsburg

and I would suggest you take a look at that before you read the book…it’s not for everybody.

However, I think the writing of the children is as good as any I’ve read. Full disclosure: I did read the draft of the second book and made some suggestions (and was acknowledged in the book), but I don’t have any financial connection to the book and haven’t met Derek Swannson in real life. I was asked for input because of my review of the first book. I’ve given feedback to a few people on their manuscripts, but not as a paid editor. It’s fun for me to do, and I think I’m a reasonably good amateur at it, primarily as a reader, but also as a former brick-and-mortar bookstore manager, and a follower of publishing.

What do you think? Are there books you read where you think the author got the child characters right? Was  that in book written to be read by or two children, or to be read by adults? What was it about the writing that worked for you? Do you want your books to seem like real life, or do you prefer them to be a different reality (or perhaps, you like both at different times)? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Tinder prerequisite: name 5 women authors you’ve read

August 13, 2015

Tinder prerequisite: name 5 women authors you’ve read

Regular readers know that I don’t identify gender on this blog, generally.

I try to write in a way that doesn’t use gender-specific pronouns. I don’t identify my gender, or the genders of my friends and family (I use “Significant Other”, “sibling”, “now adult kid”, that sort of thing…I also often use somewhat more awkward writing, by using proper nouns rather than pronouns. That means I may use someone’s first or last name several times in a paragraph).

I’ve explained this before, and I know not everybody endorses the idea of it, but I think my readers generally accept it…in some cases, maybe, just as an eccentricity of mine. :)

I do it so that people can feel free to comment on this blog without revealing intrinsic characteristics (I also don’t make explicit other things, like race). If I don’t do it, it’s arguably more convention for other people not to do it.

I would say that’s my favorite thing about the internet: the ability to be judged by what we say, not by who we are.

I also believe (a lot of sentences starting with “I” this time! That’s because I am, so far, talking about me…that will become somewhat different as I continue) that some of my readers think it is important to promote contributions by people who might face a lack of recognition because of who they are.

For example, I’m sure there are people who by default assume authors are male. It used to be much more true, I believe, that women authors would have a tougher time in the mainstream marketplace. Female authors sometimes had pen names designed to disguise their gender…either by using, say, initials instead of a first name, or by choosing a deliberately male name.

In English, many speakers assume the default is male.

We no longer tend to use the term “authoress” and people don’t say “lady doctor” much any more. I don’t use the term “actress”, unless I have to quote something, like the categories in the Oscars. To me, it singles out female actors as different from “regular actors”. There isn’t a term for male actors like there is for female actors. If you say that the play calls for ten “actors”, that means both the female and male roles. If you say it calls for “six actors and four actresses”, the generic term refers to the males, meaning that “male” is seen as “normal”.

I’ve had readers assume that my now adult kid is male…since that’s the default, I think. I haven’t said either way. :)

So, I found this

TNW (The Next Web) post by MIC WRIGHT

interesting.

It’s about Tegan (AKA BellJarred) who asks men (the article specifically says men) who want to connect to name five female authors they’ve read first.

Actually, the article is a bit confusing. The article says “five books written by female authors”, but part of what they show seems to suggest it is “five female authors”.  That makes a big difference. Anybody who has read the Harry Potter series has read five books written by a female author (Jo Rowling…although the books were published with the gender neutral J.K. Rowling, and I understand that was because of a concern that boys would be less likely to want to read books written by a female author. I find that an odd argument: it’s likely to be the parents/legal guardians of a young child who would make the book buying purchase decisions, especially for something that was relatively expensive like the Harry Potter books. They may have been right about the marketing…but certainly, most book buyers knew that Rowling was female after the first book or so, and the sales did not go down).

The only challenge for me on this would be remembering which authors are female.

I don’t make a book buying decision based on that. I don’t make a book reading choice based on that.

I’m generally not big about an author’s biography…except, perhaps, when it informs nonfiction. If your autobiography is about having been a child soldier, than having been a child soldier is important. :) If it’s a novel, well, for me, it just doesn’t matter.

I experiment with my own mind. :) Years ago, I made an effort not to identify people I met in person by gender. I succeeded. I met someone, and later could not identify their gender to someone else. I know, though, that’s unnatural. It took a form of…self-hypnosis, I suppose, to achieve. I didn’t maintain it, though.

That ability has certainly been useful at times. I don’t like being annoyed (apparently unlike some people on the internet) ;) and I don’t like conflict. If I find something that irritates me, what I usually do is change that irritation into amusement by reframing it. Then, I’ll smile when I encounter what was a former irritant.

I’ll give you an example.

My Significant Other, who I love very much, tends to put things into places I use as workspaces. We are having our kitchen redone right now…we hadn’t had a working stove for many years, and there were a lot of other issues. We refinanced, and we’re having the kitchen done by Ikea (the look of it and the price of the cabinets are both good…the experience with the contractors, to whom we were connected by Ikea, has not been). That means we have no cabinets, no counter space.

I keep a few spaces clear for food prep. For example, a little corner of a table where we have the microwave and a “third burner”, not even a square foot, is where I prep my oatmeal. :) I put a plastic bag on the lid of the garbage can, so I can put some things there. We have a half wall where I set the dog dishes (small dogs, small dishes), as I get the canned dog food out of the refrigerator (which is in our living room). Next to the sink in the bathroom, I have an area where I clean dishes.

My SO has left things in all of these spaces, I think. :)

That’s not done on purpose, consciously, to mess me up. We both need empty spaces…I think these are just convenient.

I used to be irritated to find something in a “clear space” like that.

I reframed it for myself as being like a cat getting in your “warm spot” on a chair when you get up to get something. :)

That charms me…and now, I smile when it happens.

My point on all this is that identifying people by gender is natural…arguably, even a species survival requirement (although perhaps, not in all circumstances).

Making the effort to identify female authors I’ve read, I then found it not difficult at all to come up with five. I would guess I could come up with fifty without much effort. Coming up with more than fifty of anything can be difficult. ;)

That goes back to when I was a child, and straight on to the present.

I’ll just throw a few out here, making the point again that I didn’t read them because they were female.

I’m currently reading

Go Set a Watchman (at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)

having just re-read

To Kill a Mockingbird (at AmazonSmile)

Hm…the name “Harper” isn’t particularly female to me…I wonder if most people who read the first book when it first came out were even aware  of the author’s gender. Sure, TKaM had a female protagonist…but Harry Potter has a male one. Arguably, it’s much more common to find women writing male protagonists than vice versa, though.

I’ve read tons of Agatha Christie. :)

I read the Stephanie Plum books by Janet Evanovich.

I think I’d better just start listing some:

  • Anne McCaffrey
  • Ursula K. Le Guin
  • Constance Whyte (nonfiction)
  • Olivia Butler
  • Elaine Morgan (nonfiction)
  • Ruth Plumly Thompson (the second Oz author)
  • Jane Austen
  • Louisa May Alcott
  • Mary Wollstonecraft (and not just Frankenstein)
  • Suzanne Collins
  • Kim Harrison

I could keep going on and on.

On all of these, I’m pretty sure they are female. :)

Looking at what came to mind, there is some diversity of topic/genre there, although clearly, fantasy/science fiction is up there, and there isn’t as much nonfiction. That may be more a reflection of what I’ve read for fiction (rather than what’s written/published), but I read a lot of nonfiction. I suspect that might actually reflect a publishing…tendency, although I haven’t looked for an analysis.

What do you think? Is requiring that people have read a certain type of author before messaging you a reasonable thing to do? Do you think if someone can name five female authors they have read, it’s predictive of how well you will get along with them? Could you quickly name five female authors you’ve read? How about five authors of a given race? National origin? Is it different to ask the latter two questions than the first one? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

We interrupt this story to bring you…SEX!

July 22, 2015

We interrupt this story to bring  you…SEX!

I’ll read books with explicit sex scenes…but I do want to expect them. :)

I think it’s quite strange when I’m reading a story I’m enjoying…a science fiction novel, a mystery, with interesting character development and plot, and suddenly, there is an anatomically specific sex scene.

It doesn’t feel like it belongs there:  like it’s an ad for sex. ;)

The old saying is that sex sells, but these sorts of incongruous sex congress interludes have the opposite effect on me.

They often aren’t even sexy…it’s so step by step, it reads like instructions on how to put together a piece of furniture. ;)

Again, my biggest problem with them is that they just don’t belong there. It would be just as bad if you were reading a Western and got three pages of string theory (wait…I think Michael Crichton might have actually done that once…just kidding).

I was recently speaking with an author who had a related story. This author wrote a novel, and the publisher said it needed a sex scene. The author suggested that wasn’t a good idea…and the publisher offered to hire a ghost writer for it!

The book was published without it, and honestly, I think people would have liked the book a lot less with one of these “coitus insertus” bits.

While there are undeniably people who seek out a book to read because it has sex, I just can’t see a lot of people saying, “You know, I loved that novel…but it would have been better with a sex scene in it.”

I don’t know what the answer is to  it. Books don’t have a rating system, like movies or videogames, and I don’t really want them to have one. It’s not even about rating the overall level…I just want to know ahead of time if the author (perhaps under the influence of an editor/publisher) is going to take a “dirty detour”.

I should be clear: editors and publishers often greatly improve a book…the recent example of

Go Set a Watchman (at AmazonSmile: benefit a non-profit of your choice by shopping*)

which was reportedly an early draft of

To Kill a Mockingbird (at AmazonSmile)

appears to be the exemplar of editorial improvement.

What do you think? Are you bothered by these sorts of sex scenes? Are there other types of incongruous scenes which bother you? Are they less likely in tradpubs (traditionally published) books than in indies (independently published books)? Would you want to be warned…if so, how and by whom? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) 

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.

Re-read or not re-read…that is the question

July 17, 2015

Re-read or not re-read…that is the question

I’ve mentioned in this blog several times that I’m not a big re-reader of books.

However, I do know that many other people are.

My Significant Other knew somebody who only ever read the same two books: Helter Skelter and Gone with the Wind. They would finish one of them, start the other one, finish that and go back to the first, and so on.

That doesn’t appeal to me personally. I want books to change me. I want to read lots of books…different kinds of books by different people with different viewpoints.

For me, that’s the magic of books.

I will say that I am re-reading a book currently…fourteen books, actually.

I have an omnibus of  the original (Wizard of Oz) books, and I’ve taken to re-reading them before I go to sleep.

It takes me a long time to go to sleep at night…there’s a real process. Reading before I finally fall asleep is part of it.

I often don’t read much at that  time…quite often, not even a whole chapter.

That doesn’t mean I don’t retain it, though.

I’m re-reading them partially because I am writing some things about Oz, and I want to get the details right.

I’m also getting new insights.

Until we had cellphones,  I wouldn’t have realized that there was one in the Oz books!

The Wizard of Oz invented the cellphone

Additionally, I’m at a different  place in my life than the first time I read them…or had them read to me (I was a kid).

So, I’m now open to the idea of re-reading…even though I feel a bit guilty doing it, which I know is silly.

I can see how I’d be more likely to re-read things now, even if I didn’t have a specific purpose. It used to be that I would remember just about everything in a book I read, even years later.

That’s no longer true.

I’ll pretty much remember the general plot, but characters’ names, for example? That doesn’t happen automatically any more.

Thinking about it, it’s also interesting: I have no reluctance at all to re-watch a TV show or a movie. I’ve seen the same episodes of the original Star Trek series many times…even though I could just about write the script from memory.

I’m confident in saying that there are some movies I’ve seen more than a hundred times, and would happily watch again.

Why the difference?

I think part of it is the investment of time. Watching a movie is  a couple of hours…reading a book can be much more than that.

I also don’t expect the visual media to change me the way a book does. The level of engagement is far different…most movies work on my surface emotions…books get deep inside my mind.

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Figure we are talking about novels or short story collection/anthologies…not non-fiction, which is a different kettle of words. ;)

This whole post was inspired by a comment one of my regular readers and commenters, jjhitt, made. jjhitt thought it would be interesting for me to ask you, my readers, which books you re-read…and I am interested in that. I’m also interested in why you re-read…or why you don’t. If the poll isn’t enough for you, feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.

Join thousands of readers and try the free ILMK magazine at Flipboard!

When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. :) Shop ’til you help! :) By the way, it’s been interesting lately to see Amazon remind me to “start at AmazonSmile” if I check a link on the original Amazon site. I do buy from AmazonSmile, but I have a lot of stored links I use to check for things.

This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy  Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,399 other followers

%d bloggers like this: