So, for those of you who haven’t heard the news: Harlequin opened a self (vanity) publishing arm. In response, RWA knocked them out as an eligible publisher. This has all kinds of implications for me, as an author who writes for a Harlequin imprint, and for other authors, and for RWA, and for romance publishing, and so forth.
How do I feel about this?
I feel like my best friend just kicked my dog.
I have another review, and this time, there are multiple stars! In this case, though, they are not gold but pink, and there is not one of them, but four-and-a-half (as well as a TOP Pick).
Ahem. In any event, RT Book Reviews (full text behind a paywall–for now–I’m sorry, but it will be available to all in mid-December when the next issue comes out) has this to say about Proof by Seduction:
Here is a dazzling debut by a multitalented author who thrills readers with a twist on a traditional plot and truly unforgettable characters. Milan steams up the pages while drawing readers into an emotionally powerful relationship centering on the true meaning of love. Completely satisfying, this is a book meant for all time.
I had to read that several times–first, to read it; then, in growing disbelief, and finally, a third time, to make sure they were really talking about my book.
RT also has an author spotlight on me in the current issue; you can read it here (and again, I’m so sorry this is hidden behind a paywall), or you can pick up a copy of the magazine in stores. There’s a story in there about how I found my heroine’s name, and an exclusive excerpt that isn’t available anywhere else (except, er, my book).
But speaking of exclusive content–I recently received word that Proof by Seduction would be available from Rhapsody Book Club. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Rhapsody, they hand-pick romances and produce them in beautiful format–hardback books, more durable than paperbacks. Victoria Dahl and I interviewed each other for Rhapsody–and that is content you won’t want to miss, as it covers such vital and important territory as the use of feather boas in writing, and the Ultimate Writer’s Food. I think the whole interview should be going on the web; I’ll be sure to link it here.
So my publisher, HQN Books, is running a fabulous experiment with Living Social, which is apparently also known as Visual Bookshelf on Facebook. The experiment goes like this: They’re giving away free e-copies (alas, DRM restricted.)
Period. You now know everything I know.
The free copies are being offered, through some magic social media algorithm, to people who they think will like it. They’re going to send out up to 1,000 of them. I don’t know how you get one of these free, early copies–aside from (a) winning the social media algorithm lottery and (b) living in the United States, but at this point, it looks like there are 77 people who now have the chance to read PROOF BY SEDUCTION free and early. The confusing part, and the part I can’t help you with, is how you go about becoming #78.
Still: people are reading my book. Gulp!
When I lived in the South many, many years ago, I had a long discussion about race with an elderly southern gentleman, who happened to teach mathematics at a community college. He was not, he insisted, a racist–no, he had supported the civil rights movement in the 1960s. But, he added, he could unequivocally state what he believed was a politically incorrect, but true, statement: Black people, he told me, were just dumber than white people. His proof of that was that in 30 years of teaching, he had never, ever had a black person get an A in his class.
Now, I hope you are as dumbfounded and horrified as I am by that revelation. I really do believe this person honestly believed he wasn’t a racist. But I’m also positive that his belief that black people were less intelligent had a huge impact on his grading and treatment of black people. I suspect he gave black people less credit on exams for identical performance, because he was convinced they just didn’t get it, no matter what their paper showed; I’m sure he gave them less time and attention in and out of class.
And I’m damned sure, that he shortchanged 30 years of black students by his attitude. It’s just simply not possible that not one black student ever deserved an A in his class. And instead of asking himself, “What am I doing to cause this unconscionable disparity?” he looked at an entire population and found them wanting.
A similar phenomenon was observed in orchestra hiring. The conventional wisdom was that women had smaller technique, and less artistic ability than men. It had nothing to do with sexism, the conductors who did the hiring insisted; women just weren’t as good as men, and they were selecting for quality. Political correctness was pointless. Then someone decided to implement a drastic technique–initial auditions were conducted behind a screen, so the conductor couldn’t see who was playing as he judged the merits of the performance. Needless to say, female participation in orchestras increased rapidly.
So when Publisher’s Weekly defends their all-male top 10 list by explaining that they chose what they believed to be the best stand-out books out there, but that they chose without regard to “political correctness,” you’ll have to excuse my bored sigh. Been there. Done that. Got the irrelevant T-Shirt.
I understand the argument about quality, and I don’t want Publisher’s Weekly (or anyone else) to bless any book with an imprimatur that is undeserved simply in the name of political correctness or inclusiveness or diversity. But their conclusion that including women on the list would simply be a matter of “political correctness” suggests to me that they’re asking themselves the wrong question. It looks like they’re asking themselves, “Why should we bend our standards to include women?” when they should be asking themselves, “Do our standards exclude women, and if so, are they good standards, and if not, how can we fix them?”
I have my first review of Proof by Seduction–and it’s from Publisher’s Weekly! They say: “Historical romance fans will celebrate Milan’s powerhouse debut, which comes with a full complement of humor, characterization, plot and sheer gutsiness.”
It’s one of only four January Mass Market titles reviewed (there will be several more weeks of January mass markets reviewed, but four to six is the usual number reviewed–and there are a lot more than 24 mass market titles released in a month. A lot.)
And it is a starred review. A starred review. A starred review. I can repeat that a few times, with different emphasis to see if it makes you say “oooh!” more.
Now, up until this moment, I have always looked at the stars attached to the review, and assumed they were bestowing some special status. As a society we are culturally conditioned to think that stars are good. You get stars in Kindergarten when you’re generally obedient and intelligent; you get stars in your eyes when you’re happy. But looking at the list of Publisher’s Weekly Best Books, I notice that not all of their Best Books have stars, and not all of their starred reviews are named Best Books. Hmmm.
I also note that the PW review of my book contains a tiny criticism (“If too much psychoanalysis sometimes gets read into a single heated gaze, such freshman flaws barely distract from the joy of watching the characters develop amid delightful plot twists.”) and non-starred reviews sometimes have no criticism at all; whereas other starred reviews sometimes also contain criticism. I also also note that there have been books I could criticize that I adored and other books that I couldn’t point out one flaw of that I just didn’t like at all. “Flawless” and “enjoyable” are not the same thing.
A side note: Mr. Milan tells me I am constitutionally incapable of recognizing a good review unless it contains the words “immortal genius” (which none of them have yet, alas), and so maybe I should not probe too deeply. I also have a tendency to overanalyze… oh, just about everything.
Still. It makes me wonder: What the heck do those stars mean? They’re not the best books. They’re not the most flawless books. Are starred reviews in Publisher’s Weekly just indicative of… reviews that get stars? Non-starred reviews, presumably, are then books which have no stars upon thars. I’m suspicious. Is this really just some sort of Dr. Seussian-star-bellied-sneetch scheme?
Why, yes, readers. I think it is. But I’m still taking my star and hugging it close. Nice, pretty star!
The first thing I saw this morning on Twitter was a link to an article about e-book sales in the New York Times.
This link, oft-retweeted, was usually mentioned alongside an admonishment to a Kindle owner named Ms. Englin. Ms. Englin’s offense?
Exploiting a loophole in Amazon’s system, Ms. Englin has linked her Kindle to the Amazon account of some nearby friends, allowing all of them to read books like “The Lost Symbol†at the same time — while paying for them only once. “I read much more, I tend to read faster for some reason, and I read a greater variety of things,†said Ms. Englin, adding that this is nearly the same as lending a physical book to friends. “We haven’t really looked closely at Amazon’s terms of service. But I do suspect we are breaking the rules.â€
This is not called stealing. It is not even in violation of Amazon’s terms of service. Let’s go take a look at a book that I love–Eloisa James’s A Duke of Her Own–on Kindle. (For some reason, Amazon seems to believe that this book was written by Lorraine Heath. Not the case, Amazon.) Scroll down to the product details, where you’ll see this lovely line:
Simultaneous Device Usage: Up to 5 simultaneous devices, per publisher limits.
See that? What that means is that you can download this book five times. So if you had a Kindle 1, and downloaded it there; and then you got a Kindle 2, and downloaded the book there, and then got a Kindle DX, and downloaded it again, and then used the Kindle for iPhone app, and downloaded it again, and then replaced your iPhone with the iPhone 3GS–you, as a consumer, would not be able to re-download the content for a sixth time, simply by virtue of your being an early, regular adopter of content. If you wanted it again, you would have to purchase a second copy.
It also means, though, that if I purchased two Kindles–one for me, and one for my husband–we could read the same books while only paying for them once. Check your horror quotient there: How do you feel about that? Feel like we’ve done anything wrong? I hope not, because it would be silly to say that me and my husband couldn’t share digital books.
In order to link a Kindle to an account, you need to share an Amazon account. That doesn’t just give someone the right to download the books you’ve purchased; it gives them the right to buy books on your credit card. Linking someone to your Amazon account is in no way like putting a file on a file-sharing site. It gives them the right to purchase Selected Nuclear Materials and Engineering Systems (Part 4) for $6270.42, and stick you with the bill. In other words, linking accounts is an act of trust, limited by good sense (and the digital rights restrictions the publishers place on their products) to good friends and close family.
This is not stealing. It is not cheating. It is not piracy. It is the time-honored, all-important act of sharing books with a few trusted friends.
As authors, I think it is easy to jump on top of people for not paying for a book. But keep in mind that the value a book has is not just in the act of reading it. It’s also–hugely so–in the act of sharing it. In giving a book to a friend and waiting breathlessly to see if she loves it as much as you do. In reading a book someone else has recommended, and figuring out why it does (or doesn’t) work for you. Books are about building community, and if we undercut that community as authors, we take value away from our books.
In a world where the price of books appears to be in free-fall, that’s not an outcome that anyone desires. So authors, please, before calling your readers thieves, think carefully: is it really theft, or is it just part of the natural and inherent value of a book? And if you insist that that value be taken away, what price do you think your books will support?
(I edited this post in tiny part to clear up an antecedent.)
I’ve posted before about the PHP script I wrote to generate links to the major online retailers.
This was helpful to some people (who did not quail at the sight of a PHP script). It was not helpful to others, who did not have the ability to run PHP on their site, or didn’t want to mess around with PHP for whatever reason (lots of good reasons: not wanting to run strange code; not wanting to run PHP at all; running WordPress where the plugins allowing the execution of PHP interfere with the WYSIWYG editor).
I’ve now set up my PHP script to generate HTML code for everyone else. Insert an ISBN; press a button; it will generate code that you can copy and paste into your website or even your WordPress WYSIWYG editor.
I’ll be refining this script over the next month or two. I do this in my copious spare time–I have a day job, and also, I am lucky enough to have writing contracts with deadlines, so my copious spare time is something like “half an hour occasionally on the weekends.” When it’s sufficiently robust, I am going to write a simple plugin so that those of you running WordPress can link to multiple retailers with one button click, from within WordPress.
I am testing this website script.
The Heart of Christmas (buy from: Borders | Amazon | B & N | Powell’s | Indiebound).
Massively Random things:
Ms. Milan brings readers a story of faith, hope and redemption that embodies what the Christmas season is all about…. [T]his story[] is multi-layered and had a few surprises in it that really made me sit up and take notice of Ms. Milan’s writing. If this short novella is what we can expect of her writing I cannot wait for her full-length novel next year. Even if you already have the other two stories in this anthology and are thinking of passing on getting them again, do not miss Courtney Milan’s This Wicked Gift.
I have no illusions that this has anything to do with me, but the anthology The Heart of Christmas has landed at #94 on the USA Today list.