Random linkage

Jaye Manus has a good post on how many conventions about books--even the prevalence of the novel--are the result of the economics of the old traditional-publishing industry. Take away things like the cost of producing a physical book and the limits of shelf space, and the possible formats really open up.

And this is a fascinating article from a few months ago in The New Yorker about K-pop (a.k.a. Korean pop music). While obviously performing songs is different from writing books, I do see similarities (the article exists, after all, because digitization has made it possible for an American writer to become mildly obsessed with a K-pop girls' group). The author writes:

When an entertainment industry is young, the owners tend to have all the power. In the early days of the movie business, Hollywood studios locked up the talent in long-term contracts. In the record business, making millions off artists, many of whom ended up broke, used to be standard business practice.

Of course, traditional publishing is hardly a young industry, but I would argue that owners tend to have the power when an industry is young because they're the ones who have figured out how to work the system and sell stuff. If they can shut out artists, then the same thing happens--if the only way to sell books is to get into a bookstore, and the only way to get into a bookstore is through a traditional publisher, that gives the publisher all the power.

Anyway, the punch line for the article is that, despite all the effort to sell squeaky-clean, highly-polished K-pop internationally, the first big breakout song was Psy's "Gagnam Style." Oops. Yeah, you never do know what's going to be a hit.

A twist too far

There are bad movies, and then there are movies that absolutely enrage people. One of the latter is the film Reindeer Games, where Ben Affleck plays an ex-con who gets forced to do a heist.

If you haven't seen the movie, you're like, What's so infuriating? There are an awful lot of mediocre action movies about a guy who wanted to get out of the game but was pulled back in. It's like a Simpsons meme at this point.

But the thing that really seems to enrage people about Reindeer Games is that there's a twist partway through, and then toward the end there's another! shocking! twist!

Except that it's not really shocking. It's unexpected, sure, but that's because it not remotely credible. (No, he doesn't wake up and it's all a dream, but it's about as satisfying.) You look at this twist that is suppose to explain all the crap that's been going on in this mediocre movie, and you promptly downgrade the film from "mediocre" to "insulting to my intelligence."

I was thinking about that because I recently finished a book where the main character is accused of crimes that--in a shocking twist!--it turns out he didn't commit.

Now, have you ever been accused of crimes you didn't commit? I have (luckily not by anyone with the least credibility), and let me tell you, everyone who knows me has heard about it. At length.

But this guy is accused by credible sources and does have a price on his head and is estranged from his family and society at large. Why? Because he never bothers to point out to people that, you know, he didn't actually do it--at least, not before the denouement.

There's a lot of drama there, what with family members trying to hunt him down and whatnot. And I suppose it was intended to be exciting, but at the end I just found myself wondering why the hell he never spoke up for himself beforehand--it would have saved him (and his family) an awful lot of trouble.

I think twists or reveals are fine as long as they make sense. But you have to be disciplined about it. I don't like it when characters just arbitrarily decide that they need to keep certain secrets (that just happen to be convenient for the plot) from their nearest and dearest. I mean, it's not like that doesn't happen (my own father hid a cancer diagnosis from his family) but it's incredibly dysfunctional behavior (while that specific cancer didn't kill my dad, that pattern of behavior finally did).

And I really don't like it when an antagonist who does horrible things to the protagonist turns out to have been secretly on their side all along. I'll give you a little life lesson: The people on your side act like they are on your side. The people trying to do you in are a danger to you. These two groups of people do not overlap. If someone insists that they are on you side as they try to do you in, that person has a personality disorder--which can make for some exciting reading, to be sure. I also don't mind it a bit in stories when people do bad things while trying to do the right thing. But if everything ends in hearts and flowers and puppies and rainbows and I-was-secretly-on-your-side-all-along, it's just not credible.

I have skepticism enough to go around

It's become painfully obvious that Barnes & Noble's Nook business is not living up to expectations, despite a significant effort on their part to convince everyone that everything's just dandy. And it's equally obvious that, although you can't always believe everything a CEO says, Amazon is likely doing much better than Barnes & Noble.

So now there's a flurry of stories about how Amazon is just doing AWESOME with e-books, making money hand over fist!!!!

And I'm just going to take a moment to rain on this particular parade.

I am willing to take it as a given that Amazon is doing better with e-books than the other retailers. I think there's enough anecdotal evidence to back that up (although bear in mind that some book do indeed sell better at other outlets, so please don't ignore them). I also assume that selling e-books is a profitable thing for them, if only because their self-publishing rates are set up so that they are basically ensured a 35-to-65 percent profit margin.

But HOW MUCH money are they making?

Oooh, look--a pretty chart! That sure looks scientific, doesn't it? And these stories are all filled with lots of numbers! Such precision!

There's just one problem: All of the stories--ALL of them--have a single source, and that source is a report by an analyst at Morgan Stanley.

Let me tell you something about analysts: They are not psychic. It's like estimating the e-book market--it doesn't matter how much analysis you throw at something if you don't have good underlying data.

Do analysts have special access to data? Investment banks would like you to think they have. As a business reporter who covered the bursting of the dot-com bubble, I'll tell you that it really depends.

Most analysts (although not all) in my experience work hard to cover a particular industry. They tend to know the industry quite well--who are the players, what are the larger industry trends. But when it comes down to a particular company...?

The problem is that it's never in a company's best interest to air its dirty laundry. NEVER. If people don't know where the bodies are buried, it is NEVER EVER in a company's best interest to point that out to them, especially if that person is an analyst. Who reads analysts' reports? People who are trying to decide whether or not to give a particular company money! Do companies ALWAYS want money? Yes, they do!

So analysts are subject to an even bigger blizzard of PR than everybody else. If they can, they try to get information from other sources to get a more realistic picture. So, for example, if Barnes & Noble is telling you they control 27% of a market, and examining parts orders suggest that they control only 13% of a closely related market, then you as an analyst can go, Hmmm.....

The problems I see with trying to break out how much money Amazon makes from e-books are that 1. Amazon is notoriously secretive, so getting it from them would be hard; 2. if they did give you those figures, you'd have to wonder why they did and if the numbers they gave you are accurate; and 3. where's the third party you can use to verify this? The Morgan Stanley analyst is basically claiming he knows the overall size of the e-book market and the percentage of it that Amazon controls. Those are some mighty big claims to make.

And I'm not even getting into the larger question of can you believe anything Morgan Stanley says about Amazon anyway? Which is a perfectly valid concern--it's not supposed to be, but stock analysis unfortunately often is stock PR that helps the investment bank more than individual investors.

Why I'm happy to be in this biz

A friend of mine is trying to start a business. Not an expensive business--something that would be part time and low overhead.

Nonetheless, the cost of starting this business is going to be, oh, three or four times what I've spent publishing over the past two years, including the times where I've basically taken a small stack of money and set it on fire. So this person is trying to raise capital, which means asking people for money.

Guess how that's going?

I was thinking about that when I read Joe Konrath's latest post about his efforts with Amazon's exclusivity program (short answer: How well it works totally varies from book to book, and no one knows why).

But Konrath is cool with that (yay, experimentation!) and toward the end of the post, he gets into goals versus dreams, writing:

I got into this business in 2002. Now, for the first time, I'm master of my own destiny, captain of my own ship. The freedom to make my own decisions is, in many ways, more important to me than money. 

As always, when you run your business, you need to set your own attainable goals. "Attainable" means they are within your power. Anything that requires the "yes" or "no" from someone else isn't a goal, it's a dream.

That's exactly the problem my friend is facing: They are making starting their business contingent on getting X amount of money from someone else. Which I think is an approach that may well have to be re-evaluated, but the fact remains that X is a pretty sizeable amount of money for this person, and it's going to take a lot of effort to get it together. So imagine if X was, say, the amount of money it takes to build a prototype CT scanner or a state-of-the-art computerized warehouse: Funding this enterprise on their own would simply be impossible, and all their goals would effectively be dreams. Which would suck.

Isn't it nice that you need so much less money to get into self-publishing? And you don't even need to have all that money at once--you can start small and do more as you can afford it. I published Trang in 2011 and only started experimenting with on-line advertising this year. That lag hasn't hurt anything. Konrath ran his latest batch of marketing experiments using titles that are much older than mine--nobody cares.

And--this is important--it doesn't cost you anything to have a book sitting there, even if it's not selling. That's very different from other kinds of businesses, where unsold inventory ages out and loses value.

Extremely low capital requirements, and unsold inventory that doesn't rack up costs. Self-publishing is a very nice and very unusual business.

How unusual? Konrath's post was picked up by The Passive Voice, and in the comments Randall Wood remarked:

I was discussing Joe’s numbers with a friend the other day. I mentioned that he had hit the 1 million books sold mark, which I thought of as an accomplishment, but I then added the fact that he gave away 600,000 books to get there.

My friend snorted his beer and about choked.

My friend is a successful businessman. He commented that Joes rate-of-return was horrible. Joe thinks otherwise. I would say they are both right depending on their individual points of view.

I would say that the businessman friend is in a normal business. You know, the kind of business where if you give away a free samples, it actually costs you something. If Konrath had given away 600,000 paper books, which he'd paid for at the wholesale rate and then paid to ship, in order to sell 1 million full-price books, then the businessman friend would have a valid point. But giving away digital copies? Costs him nothing, and costs Amazon a fraction of a cent. Konrath's rate of return is just fine, because his expenses are very close to zero.

Extremely low capital requirements, inventory that doesn't rack up costs as it sits there, and samples that are free to the vendor as well as to the customer. This is a GOOD business.

Progress report

I edited Chapter 7 of the Trang audiobook today. I think standing up worked really well--not only are there fewer chair sounds, but there are fewer flubbed lines caused by my being mush-mouthed. I think standing probably not only helps with voice projection but also just plain keeps me more alert.

I know I wanted to get back into writing, but I'm feeling a little under the weather right now (nothing serious). In addition, I'm going to be doing a lot of child care this week and (probably) next.

Progress report, General Jesus edition

I finally finished noise removal on Chapter 6 of the Trang audiobook--huzzah! God, that was a whole lot of noise removal. It wasn't just the excessive length of the chapter, but also the fact that there's a lot of dialog with the aliens, and I decided to take out all breath sounds from translated speech. I was subtle about it, so it doesn't sound as artificial as the computer's speech or the Magic Man's speech--the idea is to make it slightly nonhuman. Aesthetically, I think it works, but actually doing it is a real pain in the butt!

I find it interesting how there's this whole artistic side to the audiobook--it's not something I'd ever thought about before, but there it is. Another thing that's unique to the audiobooks is how characters pronounce "General Jesus." The diplomats all use the Spanish pronunciation of "Jesus," since presumably he was Cuban, and I think they would regard that as the correct thing to do. But the SFers all use the English pronunciation. My thinking is that that is how they would have been briefed about him--you know, using the English pronunciation to emphasize that this guy is crazy and actually thinks he's this religious figure. Their job was to kill him, so there would be no effort to show him respect by using his own pronunciation--quite the contrary, the idea would be to take him down a peg verbally. Kind of like how soldiers refer to members of the Taliban as Tabbies.

Fiction is not the easy way out

Recently I have read a spate of disappointing historical novels, and I appear to be a few chapters into yet another one (although there's still time for this one to pull it out of the fire), so I'm going to vent about unsatisfying historical fiction.

What annoys me about historical fiction? More even than preaching, or obvious anachronisms?

When the person doesn't seem to be aware that they are writing fiction!

What seems to happen with some people is that they get enthralled with a particular historical event. So they want to write a book about it. But they don't want to go to the trouble and expense of researching a nonfiction book. So they don't research it, and they call it historical fiction.

The result of this process is basically a picaresque novel: This happened and then that happened and then another thing happened and then something else happened. The End. It's not very satisfying because it's not really about anything--there's no arc of any kind. If you already know about the historical event (and oftentimes even if you don't), it's staggeringly dull.

The other problem is that this kind of writer rarely takes interesting risks with the characters. Either they slavishly follow real life, regardless of whether or not that works in a story, or they create a character...well, a character like Biftad Kennedy.

Who's Biftad Kennedy? He's the character I just created for my historical novel on the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was going to write a nonfiction book about it, but that's too much work! Instead I'll write a novel--wait a minute? Who's going to be the main character?

Oh, it can't be John F. Kennedy or anybody who had any actual responsibility for what went on then--that's too hard. I'd have to do research, and I know whatever I write about someone like John F. Kennedy is going to piss somebody off!

So, I'll invent--Biftad! He'll be a ne'er-do-well distant cousin of the real Kennedys--you know, some loutish Roger Sterling/Paris Hilton-type who never bothered to graduate from prep school because he has a trust fund and plans to just drink his life away. He'll have no influence on anything, ever, because he didn't really exist and I don't want anything in my fiction that didn't really happen. Biftad will just occasionally stagger through the White House and say things like, "Wow, cousin, that looks important. You got any gin?"

This isn't going to be like the movie Dick, where ditzy teenagers bring down a president. This isn't going to be Happy Gilmore Saves the Free World. That would be too risky and too hard. Instead, Biftad will never do anything. The reader's experience will be: I'm reading things I already know, and I'm forced to rehash them through the point-of-view of a completely useless character who just sits around drunkenly scratching his testicles, while two doors down, the world teeters on the brink of nuclear annihilation.

Wouldn't you love 600 pages of that!

The problem as I see it is that these people are writing historical fiction because they think it's easy. They think it's easier than nonfiction, because you don't have to do any research, and they think it's easier than other genres of fiction, because you don't have to be creative.

None of that is true. Good historical fiction does not come about because the writer is lazy. It takes a lot of research, and more important, it takes the exact same amount of care given to story and to character as any other kind of fiction.

Otherwise you get the exact same thing you get with weak fantasy and science fiction: A humdinger of a setting, but nothing to engage you and carry you through the book.

Progress report

I'm doing noise removal on the second half of Chapter 6 of the Trang audiobook, yay.

I haven't gotten back into writing, which is a little annoying to me, especially since noise removal is hardly the most scintillating of tasks. Part of it is just getting back into the swing of that, and part of it is that it takes some time for me to recover from a week-and-a-half of disrupted sleep. But I went ahead and did an overall word count, and I'm at 32,550 words for Trials. So yay for that, too.

Progress report

I re-recorded all the things that needed re-recording from Chapter 1 of the Trang audiobook through the first half of Chapter 6, which is now officially done. And I did a little noise removal on the second half of Chapter 6.

Spring may not be quite as horrible as I had thought

It sounds like things may actually happen on the out-of-state elderly relative front without my having to basically spend the entire spring there, doing every last thing myself. That would be wonderful, plus it would mean that I don't have to buy some kind of portable computing device in hopes of getting anything done, which is good. I may even be able to attend Norwescon!

I'm thinking about some beta tasks to do once the Trang audiobook is done. As it turns out, recording an audiobook is a good way to find typos (at one point Cheep is called Chip--funny how hard that is to catch when you're reading silently, but how glaringly obvious it is when you're reading aloud). So I've been marking those up as I find them, and I'll clean up the e-books when that's done with.

Of course, with the new computer, how should I do the e-book files? I think in the interest of efficiency I'll just use Calibre again--I'll save the learning curve for when I convert Trials.

Speaking of new software, I want to spend a little more quality time sorting out GIMP. Obviously, if I'm doing Norwescon, I'll do some flyers, but the other, more-sophisticated project I have in mind is to re-do the lettering on the cover of Trang and Trust. I think the author name should probably be a bit larger and easier to read, plus the title lettering could stand to look a little more elaborate (which I hope is something this program lets you do--my old program was pretty limited). The tweaking should also give me some practice with GIMP, which I'm going to need when I get around to doing the Trials cover. 

What else? David Gaughran had a good post about the importance of mailing lists--it's nothing that I didn't know, but I've been very lazy about creating one of those, mainly because I just don't think I have it in me to do a full-fledged newsletter. But I could just do new-book alerts and sale alerts--that sort of thing. I'll put it on the list, anyway, along with getting on Pintrest.

Why there is no Lactose Intolerant French Huguenot History Month

I periodically read WhiteWhine--it's funny, but it's also capable of completely destroying any good opinion you may have of humanity, so I try to take it in small doses. Anyway, to celebrate of Black History Month, they have the obligatory selection of "Why isn't there a White History Month?" whines.

Putting aside the fact that these people are assholes, let's rephrase that question and take it a little more seriously: Why is there only Black History Month?

Or rather: Why is that you only hear about Black History Month? Because there actually are a lot of other heritage months and days and whatnot. But they definitely don't get the same kind of press.

Why is that?

Having worked for a multicultural educational publisher, I can reveal the reason to you. As you might imagine, it's an elaborate conspiracy, masterminded by this nation's most-celebrated secret society, The Illuminati! Yup: Jay-Z, Nicky Minaj, and Black History Month--we really are a full-service secret society!

The other reason? Black people buy Black history.

Yeah, that's the real reason. It's not guilt, or political correctness, or African Americans being "superior," or what have you. It's capitalism: African Americans identify as a group with a common heritage, there's a lot of them, they have money, and they don't mind spending it to learn about or to commemorate their history. And what do you know--Black History Month is a big success! There are books and TV specials and concerts and all kinds of things, because these things attract an audience.

Hispanic Heritage Month? Not so much. Women's History Month? Oh my God, if women bought women's history the way African Americans buy African-American history, multicultural educational publishers would be rolling in dough. But they don't.

German American Heritage Month--wait, that's a joke, right? I ask only because a good chunk of my family was Not German. You know about the Not Germans, right? Their ancestors came to this country before World War I from Saxony or Bavaria or Prussia or some place that was Not Germany. Once they came to this country, they called themselves Pennsylvania Dutch or just plain old Not German. When World War I rolled around they changed their names just to make sure everyone knew that they were really, really Not German. My father the amateur genealogist found it easier to handle the revelation that his family owned slaves than he did the revelation that his family's heritage was largely German. Let's just say that I'll be surprised if German American Heritage Month ever makes the kind of splash Black History Month does.

My point is, while it might make seem like a good idea to have a lot of heritage months (especially if you publish multicultural educational books), the fact of the matter is some groups will rally around such products, and others won't.

This is true for the wider world of genre, too. Some people really identify as readers of a particular genre--they read voraciously within that genre, and they even socialize around these books. It's why you have to go to the trouble of putting things into categories, even if you think genre categories are arbitrary and kind of stupid.

And it's why you have to market your book to the categories that already exist, even if that's a little tough to figure out. As Jaye Manus wrote, "[F]ocus your book description on what the readers are actually looking for." You don't want to find yourself stuck marketing "German Pride!" to a bunch of Not Germans (who might, however, buy a book about the Pennsylvania Dutch).

A tiny hint that retailers are maybe starting to pay attention

So, Apple is starting to highlight self-published e-books in its store.

It's something, right? I mean, if you compare Amazon, which has been great to self-published writers, and Barnes & Noble, which has pretty much sucked for self-published writers, and you look at who is seeing more e-book growth, it might occur to you that appealing to self-published writers might be good business.

Might be!

Of course, you have to actually appeal to them, which is harder to do than saying, "We just love us some self-published writers!" To actually appeal to self-published writers, you have to make the service easy for writers to use (time is money, after all). And then you actually have to be good at attracting readers (helpful hint: hiding the free books is a bad idea), and then you have to make it easy for those readers to find and buy and read stuff, because what self-published writers really like is sales.

Apple does not have a great reputation on any of these fronts.

With Apple (and Kobo, too) it seems like they're making a lot of promising noises. And that's great--I'm glad they're thinking of moving into this sector more aggressively. I think more sales platforms are good, because then writers would have to rely less on Amazon. I think if people really gave it some thought, they could create real competition: Passive Guy has a great post on how much book discovery could be improved by making a search engine that works more like Lexis-Nexis--which is a very robust search engine, to be sure, but hardly a new technology.

But if Barnes & Noble is proving anything, it's that the devil of selling e-books is in the details. So far, I don't see a lot of retailers really nailing those details.

With a pin-pin here, and a pin-pin there

Lindsay Buroker had a recent article on using Pintrest. Once again she takes something I would never have considered doing (Pintrest? For a book?) and notes that with, oh, about 30 seconds of effort you can have a presence on yet-another social media site.

And in one of those serendipitous things, another social-media savvy person I know (who works in the nonprofit sector) linked to this graphic about Pintrest's demographics and how the people on there like to spend money (especially on food, it seems).

The focus on food and the fact that the site clearly skews toward young mothers makes me a little skeptical that it's worth doing for books like mine. (Of course, if I were writing, say, women's literature with recipes, this post would be about how I'm already on Pintrest.) On the other hand, there is Buroker's (eternal, and eternally valid) case that, "I didn’t have to work very hard for those visitors." So I think I will get on there eventually.

Ah--"I didn’t have to work very hard for those visitors." Her lodestone and mine....

Progress report

The roof was completely finished today (and there was much rejoicing). The gutters still have to happen, but I'm assuming that will be done tomorrow, when I'm looking after the kid anyway.

Other than that, it's been a lot of focus on the Trang audiobook this past week (even on days when the roofers couldn't work, I still had to get up at the crack of dawn in case they did come, so writing was just not happening). Audiobook work is a good beta project precisely because it's repetitive and not especially creative, so I can do it when I'm too sleepy or distracted to write. But the downside is that it does get pretty boring after a while, especially because events resulted in my having a whole lot of noise removal to do.

So today I was looking at that pile of files and going, NOOOOO!!!! but I set the timer and did a slog in the theory that it wasn't like I wasn't going to have to do it all later if I didn't get some of it done today. And I completed noise removal on the first half of Chapter 6, so yay for me.

I have a line to re-record there, but I assume gutter replacement is no less noisy than roof replacement, so I'll do that and the fixes on the first five chapters after that work is done.

And I'm going to be very happy to get back to writing, especially because I think I sorted out how to start the book.

The beginnings of later books

One of the things I did with Trust was go to great lengths to make it accessible to someone who hadn't read Trang. Since I haven't been able to write this week, I've put a lot of thought into how to do that with Trials, because the current opening would be of zero interest to someone unfamiliar with the other books, and I wanted to fix that.

It's been surprisingly difficult to work out (although I think I have a fix now), so I've been wondering if it was even worth doing, since it is book three of four--shouldn't people who haven't read the first two books expect to be left behind? But that line of thinking was recently debunked for me by a fellow author. This person is writing a VERY long series, and there was a production glitch with, oh, let's say book #23 that didn't affect the text, so they gave the defective copies away to a random group of people that included me.

It's not necessarily the kind of book I'm interested in, but I'm always on the lookout for presents, so I tried giving it a read. And it reads like this:

MO: Did you hear about Jo?

BO: Jo? You're asking me about Jo?

MO: Well, I thought you had a right to know--Jo is thinking about visiting Akron.

BO: Mother of God!!! Not Akron!

MO: I know it sounds crazy.

BO: Especially now that--he can't be thinking of Akron!

MO: Well....

BO: And--he's not thinking of taking Ko to Akron, is he?

And on it goes. There is never any attempt to explain to the reader the nature of Bo, Mo, Ko, and Jo's relationship, or why going to Akron is such a big deal.

I'm planning to struggle through, but I have to say I'm not optimistic that it will get better for me. Since I'm not enjoying the book now and probably won't be able to, the chances of my buying the first book in the series for someone else are quite slim.

So much for that working as marketing.

In contrast, take Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin books. I have read the entire series, and in every one last one O'Brian manages to 1. tell you who the major characters are, and 2. orient you to the world of the 18th-century British Navy.

By book #18, did I need this information? No, I did not. In fact, I'd skim or skip those sections. Did that put me off the books? Oh, hell, no. I was hooked. It didn't matter to me if I had to jump over most of pages 3-4 to find out what those two were up to!

Likewise the Vorkosigan Saga--when, say, Miles' cousin Ivan gets introduced, I'll breeze right over the part that explains who he is, exactly, because I already know. I know it because I've read all the Vorkosigan books, so clearly, I don't resent it.

My point is, you never know how someone is going to get into your books. (And even with series I really like, often I'll let a year or two lapse between books, so refreshers are welcome.) A paragraph I skim over hardly even qualifies as a minor annoyance. Feeling like I've walked into a party and no one will give me the time of day, because they're all so excited to be talking to each other again? That's a lot more irritating.

Progress report

The roofers finished the roof today, although there's still gutters and some miscellany to do. I listed to the MP3 files through Chapter 5 of the Trang audiobook and found some fixes.

I also realized that I can't really create a final MP3 file, because different audio- and podiobook outlets have different requirements. It was worth generating these MP3s so that I could give them a final listen with earphones, but given how many different versions I'm going to have to generate. there's no point in doing more than a spot-check of the MP3 files I actually release.

Progress report: Pay-attention-to-that-language-advisory edition

The roofers are here! The cats are freaking! I tried doing noise removal on the first half of Chapter 6 of the Trang audiobook, but the banging is just too much--I'm going to try listening to the MP3 files on my earphones instead.

Oh, and I got another 1-star review on Amazon by someone who quit after the first page upon seeing profanity. At least 1. he did not insult me, and 2. he acknowledges that he should have noticed the language warning. But he also says that he "read the blurb up through 'Heinlein.'" Um--where does "Heinlein" appear, exactly?

(I actually do like me some Robert Heinlein, and it is social sci-fi, but I hate Starship Troopers, and I know a lot of so-called Heinlein fans are actually Starship Troopers fans. Which means that they don't like books with actual stories in them, so I assume they wouldn't like Trang. Or pretty much anything else Heinlein wrote.)

I do honestly think people who don't read a book have no standing to review it (not just MY books--every book, and play, and movie, and song, and piece of visual art. The sad thing is, there are "cultural critics" who strongly disagree), but I did not report this guy's review. Mainly because he's a lot less infuriatingly sanctimonious, but also because, once again, I think it will help ward away the prudes and attract the literate.

Progress report: Compression edition

The weather remained unchanged, so I was able to finish re-recording the messed-up lines in Chapter 6 of the Trang audiobook.

And then I compressed it. Have I ever explained dynamic range compression? No, I have not, and that's because I'm not entirely sure what it is. Here's the Wikipedia article--it's full of terms like "side-chaining" and "attack and release" and "flux capacitator," so maybe you can understand it, but I can't. I just set my compression tool to what ACX tells me to and let 'er rip.

My guess from working with it is that dynamic range compression basically does what it says: If you imagine a range of sounds from very quiet ones to really loud ones, compression adjusts all those sounds so that they're all at medium level of loudness. That's helpful in getting rid of clipping and fixing any places where your voice gets timid. It also just generally helps keep the volume constant, so that nothing's inaudible but nobody's ears get blown out.

Compression is less helpful with breath sounds, which it makes louder. That's why you always do your compression before you do your noise removal.

A quick note about January and Trust

So, since I enrolled Trang in KDP Select, I had one set of free days in late December and another set a few days ago. As I've mentioned, I have given away scads of copies of Trang.

That's all well and good, but it's not like I can make money giving away free copies, right? In my accounting, free copies are not tracked and don't count.

But sold copies count. How has giving away so many copies of Trang affected sales of Trust?

Well, they've had quite the impact! We're still not talking huge numbers here, but in January alone I sold 85% as many copies of Trust as I had in the last six months of 2012 (Trust came out in June). And that percentage is probably a hair smaller than it should be, since presumably some of December's sales happened after the late-December giveaways.

But of course I lost revenue on sales of Trang, right? Actually, it's been a good month for Trang sales--not as good as Trust sales, but good. (Let's hear it for the also-bots!)

Of course, if I make Trang permanently free, then I'll completely lose any chance to make revenue off that book, and as it sells more, that becomes a tougher call. On the other hand, all this is happening because Trang had free days! So I'm still confident that free is the way to go.

This makes me laugh, but not in a good way

PV linked to this article, about how Amazon's 70% growth in e-book sales is actually really bad news for the company and e-book sales in general. In fact, as Edward Grant pointed out, once again double-digit growth in e-book sales has magically becomes a reduction! 

Got that? SEVENTY PERCENT GROWTH is reason to swig down a bottle of antifreeze. I'm sure Jeff Bezos will get right on that. After all, remember what a 34% growth rate looks like? So sad....

Meanwhile, over at Publishers Weekly, publishers are arguing that a 5% growth rate in the sales of paper books is fantastic!!! (OK, fine, it is actually a nice number for a mature industry.)

Having worked in publishing, I know that many people in it are not great at math. But I would think that even my fellow English majors would realize that there's a HUGE difference between a 70% rate of growth and a 5% rate of growth, that one segment of the market is growing much faster than the other (helpful hint: the one with the bigger number is growing more), and (stay with me here) growth in a market is not a decline.