A couple of weeks ago, the Authors Guild released a note regarding Amazon’s desire to restrict any POD titles except their own to flow through their distribution system. Below is part of the Guild’s note:

“Last week Amazon announced that it would be requiring that all books
that it sells that are produced through on-demand means be printed by
BookSurge, their in-house on-demand printer/publisher. Amazon pitched
this as a customer service matter, a means for more speedily
delivering print-on-demand books and allowing for the bundling of
shipments with other items purchased at the same time from Amazon. It
also put a bit of an environmental spin on the move — claiming less
transportation fuel is used (this is unlikely, but that’s another
story) when all items are shipped directly from Amazon.

We suspect this maneuver by Amazon is far more about profit margin
than it is about customer service or fossil fuels. The potential big
losers (other than Ingram) if Amazon does impose greater discounts on
the industry, are authors — since many are paid for on-demand sales
based on the publisher’s gross revenues — and publishers. We’re reviewing the antitrust and other legal implications of Amazon’s bold move.”

What’s your take on this matter?

Last week an article an article regarding a new imprint from HarperCollins appeared in the Wall Street Journal that made me see red. Here are a few excerpts from it:

“Marking a radical departure from traditional book-publishing practices, HarperCollins Publishers says it will launch a new book imprint that won’t accept returns from retailers or pay advances to authors.

“To be headed by veteran publishing executive Robert S. Miller, the imprint also likely won’t pay for more desirable display space in the front of bookstores, a common practice. Instead, the as-yet-unnamed unit will share its profit with writers and focus much of its sales efforts on the Internet, where a growing portion of book sales are shifting.”

The article goes on to talk about whether retailers will accept this no return policy which has been tried unsuccessfully before, and the economic pressures both the publishers and booksellers are facing.

Last paragraph: “Mr. Miller said that many authors who currently receive large advances won’t be interested in the new model. However, he thinks he will attract major authors who have a book in the desk drawer that doesn’t fit their image, as well as up-an-coming writers.”

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why folks, in one industry or another, are always trying to screw the author. The model HC proposes is no better than POD in my opinion. In fact, it’s worse. When ANY company says they’ll share the ‘profits,” that’s a major red flag. Are they talking about gross profits or net profits? The major screwing comes into play if they’re talking net profits because it’s too easy to ‘cook’ the books and make sure NO net profits (or at best minimal) appear on the financial statements. Companies do it all the time to reduce their tax liability.

No advances—no returns (which means fewer purchases by book-buyers, I assure you!)—and no placement boons? Where’s the win to the author here? There ain’t none!

In my opinion, as a writing community, a stance should be taken regarding this injustice—the same stance as those fighting drug abuse in our country. And that stance is JUST SAY NO! grrrr…… Enough is enough. Writers bust their humps to squeak out a living, barely able to make ends meet, and they’re lucky if those ends even come close to touching! Why does it appear that the film industry, now the very industry we depend on to make our living, are determined to break us down to sniveling, homeless runts, dependant on wages that are even below Scrooge’s stipends?

Even worse, to target new writers to fill in this imprint is outrageously unjust. (If those major authors they’re referring to have anything to say about it, I would hope their say is “No, way, Jose!”

Prey on the newbies, the unsuspecting? They won’t be unsuspecting long—not as long as I have a voice!

Over the years, I’ve meet literally hundreds of people who’ve claimed they wanted to write a book, or have written a book, (or at least part of a book), and now want to get published and be a full-time writer. Poor babies….

Even better is when someone tells me, “Hey, I’ve got a terrific idea for a book, (a poetry book no less)—best seller stuff for sure. So what say I give you the idea, you write it, then we can split the bazillion dollar profits!”

Argg… I truly hate being the one to tell them that writers and profits seldom go hand in hand, especially poetry writers and profits.
It’s highly unlikely a poetry book will make the bestseller’s list, even if a writer managed to find a mass-market publisher for his or her collection. In fact, it’s tough selling a single poem, much less an entire book of them. Aside from the fact that folks just don’t read the way they used to years ago, technology allows them to write and perform their own songs in minutes. They don’t care about wading through poetry books, no matter how brilliant.

However, on occasion, I do meet up with someone who, in my opinion, has come up with a great lifestyle idea. Something that offers more than what’s typically found in the same ol’, same ol’ self-help books. When that happens, I do my best to help connect that person to agents and/or editors I know who might be interested, and if that doesn’t work, it’s the ONLY time I suggest that self-publishing might be a viable alternative, especially if the writer specializes in a particular field, like Reiki for example. Even better, if he or she does a lot of workshops, lectures, and/or has a private practice, he or she might actually do well by having a few self-published tomes on hand for clients.

Maybe enough to get his or her investment back anyway.

Regardless, unless you have an AMAZING concept, and an even more AMAZING book, consider breaking even akin to being a millionaire.
Maybe selling a little self-published book as you make your lecture circuit will give you bigger and better ideas for a book more suitable for a “real” publisher farther down the road. That said, however, I still recommend trying to get someone else to publish your book first. Go to the small presses if the big ones are taking too long.

Submit a professional proposal. For a non-fiction book, here is what’s usually required….
Synopsis
Table of Contents
Chapter breakdown
Sample Chapter
An Overview of the book
A Market Report about where your book fits in the market
An Author Bio slanted towards the Book
Resume

It’s fine to ask other writers about what works for them, what strategies they use, where the latest market reports are kept, but really…be realistic. Do you think Stephen King sits around publishing his own books, making his own book covers, selling his books out of his car, and collaborating with people who have never finished a book of their own?

It’s common sense, really. That and educating yourself on the job description of a writer.

Be professional. Act professional. Submit professional proposals. Be confident in your work. FINISH your work. Say something new and interesting, then there should be no reason why the money shouldn’t flow TO the author instead of away.

There’s something about the government dicking around with time that really makes me grit my teeth. Although this isn’t a political rant, it’s a rant nonetheless, and I’ll mark it up to coincidence (yeah, right!) that the government is involved. This mouthing off has to do with Daylight Savings Time….

Why did daylight savings time (DST) start in the first place, and why does it still continue? After doing a little research, I found two basic, consistent answers to the first question. “The reason it began was to help the farmers” or “Because of World War I … or was it World War II?”
Digging a little deeper, I discovered that daylight savings time did indeed begin in the United States during World War I, primarily to save fuel by reducing the need to use artificial lighting. Although some states and communities observed the time change between the wars, it was not observed nationally again until World War II.

Hello, McFly . . .World War II is long over. So why in the hell do we still observe it? Well, according to a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo, the Uniform Time Act of 1966 provided the basic framework for us to alternate between daylight savings time and standard time. But Congress can’t seem to resist tinkering with it. For example, in 1973 daylight savings time was observed all year, instead of just the spring and summer. The current system of beginning DST at 2 AM on the first Sunday in April and ending it at 2 AM on the last Sunday in October was not standardized until 1986.

Over the years, politicians and special interest groups have come up with new reasons to support DST. One is safety. Some people believe that if we have more daylight at the end of the day, we will have fewer accidents. In fact, this “benefit” comes only at the cost of less daylight in the morning. When year-round daylight time was tried in 1973, one reason it was repealed was because of an increased number of school bus accidents in the morning. A further study of traffic accidents throughout Canada in 1991 and 1992 by Stanley Coren of the University of British Columbia before, during, and immediately after the so-called “spring forward” when DST begins in April, found an eight percent jump in traffic accidents on the Monday after clocks are moved ahead. The study attributes the jump to the lost hour of sleep. In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine, Coren explained, “This data shows that small changes in the amount of sleep that people get can have major consequences in everyday activities.” He undertook the study as a follow up to research showing that even an hour’s change can disrupt sleep patterns and “persist for up to five days after each time shift.” Other observers attribute the huge spike in accidents on the first Monday of DST to the sudden change in the amount of light during driving times.

Regardless of the reason, there is no denying that changing our clocks has an impact on humans. The thing is, I don’t need an official, government study to verify that. All I’ve got to do is look in the mirror. The dark circles under my eyes provide plenty proof!

Evidently, Congress felt we were not having enough of a difficult time, so in 2007 they passed a law starting Daylight Savings Time three weeks earlier and ending it one week later. This cost U.S. companies billions of dollars to reset automated equipment, put us further out of sync with Asia and Africa, time-wise, inconvenienced most of the country, all in the name of unproven studies that claim to save energy.

So here’s my take on the whole situation…. If we’re truly saving energy, let’s go year round with Daylight Savings Time. If we’re not, then drop the damn thing for Pete’s sake! It’s bad enough that time in general seems to be moving ahead at warp speed. Why the heck would we want to put a booster rocket on it?

What’s your take on DST?

From the day my daughters were old enough to understand, I taught them to be respectful of policemen/women, even to the point of reprimanding the girls whenever I heard one of them use the term, ‘cop.’ My theory had always been that those who work in law enforcement face peril or the potential for peril everyday and do so at ridiculously low salaries. In my opinion, that alone earned them the respect of a proper title. Yes, of course I know there are bad apples in every barrel, and, yes, there are some so bad they don’t even deserve to be wearing a badge, but overall, I viewed the whole as a “Protect and Serve” unit….until a few days ago.

What you’re about to read is a true story. The names (and town) have been changed simply because this is a public forum.

A few days ago one of my daughters was physically attacked by her ‘husband.’ The attack came out of nowhere, something he’d never done before, something she least expected. Fortunately, she managed to get away with minimal injuries and get herself to an emergency room. While there, she told them what had caused the injuries, and the hospital informed the police. Two officers show up, question her, go to her home, find no one there—then do NOTHING to find the guy. Their excuse? It’s a domestic issue, there were no witnesses, which basically means it is a ‘he-said, she said’ deal. Oh, yeah, they also told her that should her husband return home and a problem occur, to make sure to give them a call. Had I been there at the time they told her this, I swear I’d be writing this from a cell block right now. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on the perspective, I was on the other side of the U.S. when I heard about the incident.

Too many hours later, when I finally make it to my daughter’s side, I load her up in my truck and head for HER house. She needs clothes, etc, and I don’t want her going back to the house alone, just in case asshole husband shows up. Well, don’t ya know we’re a few miles away from her home when a/h calls her cell phone. She doesn’t answer, allows it to go to voicemail. Aside from his message being verbally abusive, he initiated another threat if she called the police, AND alerted us to the fact that he was now at the house. I pulled off the highway then and called the police, told them what had happened, what was happening, gave my daughter the phone so she could reiterate those facts. The officer on the phone told her if she suspected her husband might harm her for her not to go home.

WHAT?

I got back on the phone, told the officer we had to get to the house because she needed personal belongings (clothes, meds for sinus infection, etc.) and all we wanted was a unit to follow us to the house. He/She didn’t even have to follow her into the house, parking in the driveway so asshole husband could see them would have probably been a big enough deterrent to at least keep her safe while she packed a few things. The officer finally agreed to send a unit, and said unit would meet us at a small store near her home.

There were three units waiting when we arrived, all three officers standing outside near their units, watching us drive up. The moment we stepped out of the car, I knew something was way off. The first officer to approach had the look of a rabid bulldog that someone had tried to castrate without sedation. The two other officers looked like Barney Fife twins on steroids. Both appeared amused, like they were about to witness a boxing match or something.

First officer barked out my daughter’s name as a question. She, of course, confirmed who she was. The officer then proceeds to verbally BLAST her!

Officer 1- “Weren’t you told by Officer Whothef***ever, to stay away from your house if you suspected your husband might do you bodily harm?”

Daughter—”Yes, Sir, but—”

Officer 1—”I didn’t ask for buts. I asked you a yes or no question! Were you not told to stay away from your house . . .”

My mouth is hanging open by this time. They see my daughter’s bruised face—she’s shaking, crying, can barely talk because this dickwad is on her like white on a snow-goose.

Now I have a choice, get my daughter back in the car and leave because it’s far too obvious the ‘good ole’ boy’ network was hard at play here…..or shoot the sonofabitch and go to prison. I swear it was a tough choice.

After a lot of juggling, good ole boy swapping, my daughter now has a strong divorce attorney—who also happens to also be an expert at civil law suits.

Needless to say, after that ‘Twilight Zone’ experience, I offer no more reprimands for their use of slang. In fact, for those three ‘officers’ specifically, I came up with a few new, choice slang words of my own.