Quotation for the Week of June 27

"If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going."
-- Professor Irwin Corey

E-Books 101: Part 5 - Reviews

Right now, it's kind of tough for authors who write nothing but ebooks to get their work reviewed. Of course, readers can post reviews online. However, finding readers who devote themselves to reviewing ebooks is difficult.

Happily, this is changing. With the rise in ebook popularity, a few hardy souls have come forward and taken up the slack.

I'll give a few names and contact information here.

The first is Red Adept. Her submission guidelines are on Red Adept Reviews.

The second is Misty at KindleObsessed. Check in the right-hand column for the link "Author Review Request."

Finally, there's Karen at Books on the Knob. Her contact information is here, and her email address is booksontheknob@gmail.com.

This is all public knowledge available on the Internet. I've just put it in one place.

You're welcome.

Quotation for the Week of June 20

"I have a rock garden. Last week three of them died."
-- Richard Diran

Rumors That Content Has Been Dethroned May Be a Bit Exaggerated

I ran across an article recently called Content Is No Longer King: Curation Is King. Naturally, with a headline like that, I had to take a look.

What I saw was a discussion about how content has become ubiquitous and unfiltered. Content can be created by almost anyone now (any semi-literate person with an Internet connection can create online content).

But does that mean that content is no longer king? I'd have to say no.

What it does mean is that there's an awful lot of content to choose from. Thus, the importance of curation. Separating wheat from chaff and getting the good stuff in front of enough eyeballs.

Ah, but who makes the determination of what's eyeball-worthy? That's the question.

The article refers to "pressures" the overabundance of content creates on certain institutions. They include publishing, experts, advertising and search. (Um, when did search become an institution? Oh, never mind ...)

In the interests of brevity, I'll focus on publishing. (Even though, as a lawyer, I could go off on the subject of so-called experts. Especially people who finagle the system to appoint themselves as such. But I digress.) I'll also focus on the quality of the writing, as opposed to the accuracy of the information (a topic which, as a librarian, I could also write a book about).

With respect to publishing, the article notes: "In a world where everyone makes content, publishing is no longer able to lay claim to being the 'best' maker of quality content in their field. In fact, content creation is [sic] costly and painful though this may be, may not result in measurably better content than content curation. Mixing creation and curation is essential for survival. Check out Huffington Post for a mix of created, curated, and crowd-sourced content."

Okay, maybe the notion that publishers could "lay claim to being the 'best' maker of quality content" was a bit specious to begin with. In any case, publishers have always chosen the content that writers create. The notion of curation is nothing new in that sense. The difference is that now content is widely (and often freely) available. Increasingly, if anyone gets to choose what's the "best" content, it's the people who read it.

What's interesting is the paragraph starts with a notion I find a bit specious and morphs into something I might even agree with.

In a sense, this represents a loss to some people who feel someone with a depth of editorial experience should be making decisions about what's available. However, in another sense, it represents the possibility that good quality content can be distributed and noticed without a formal stamp of approval.

This lowers the threshold for writers who are good at putting out the work and allows readers to render judgment about the quality.

Does all this mean that content is no longer king? Hardly. If anything, creating good content is even more imperative. How will the curation decisions be made otherwise? (Check the article's comments. I think the point is raised there, too.)

And though (for good or ill) effective promotion and marketing play an essential role, haven't they always? Surely, the cream of the writing crop haven't always gotten their due in terms of notice and success. This was true even back in the day, before print-on-demand technology, the Internet and ebooks lowered the bar for entry into publishing.

So, while we may be drinking content from the proverbial fire hose, I have to think that people will notice if the waters are tainted. I think readers can decide whether the content is champagne or vinegar.

If content is no longer king, I'd say it's been promoted to emperor.

Quotation for the Week of June 13

"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."
-- Mark Twain

Post-BEA Thoughts (and Poetry?)

Even though I went to Book Expo America this year and blogged about my personal experience elsewhere, I ran across a couple of articles about the event that I wanted to share.

The first is about ebooks (what a surprise). Needless to say, ebooks were a hot topic at BEA, as you can see from reading the article.

In addition, The Writer Magazine had a great roundup of post-BEA articles you might find interesting. Along with the roundup, the article touched briefly on DIY publishing (another hot topic).

Finally (and apropos of nothing else in this post), I just wanted to make any aspiring poets aware of Comment Magazine's second-annual "Making the Most of College" poetry contest, which runs until July 1st, 2010.

Quotation for the Week of June 6

"I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later."
-- Mitch Hedberg

Will Publishers Become Irrelevant?

The question (which I implied years ago) is finally being raised openly. Authors like Joe Konrath are giving DIY workshops on publishing, despite years of toiling in the fields of traditional publishing. His amazing success with publishing on Kindle has opened his mind a bit on the whole self-publishing thing (at least, with respect to ebooks). He even recognizes others who've never had traditional publishers who've done as well or even better.

Of course, not everyone is embracing this new approach to publishing. Garrison Keillor has bemoaned where this will lead. Rather than restate his position, I'll quote some relevant passages.

"I grew up on the windswept plains with my nose in a book, so I am awestruck in the presence of book people, even though I have written a couple books myself. These are anti-elitist times, when mobs are calling for the downfall of pointy-head intellectuals who dare tell decent people what to think, but I admire the elite. I'm not one of them — I'm a deadline writer, my car has 150,000 miles on it — but I'm sorry about their downfall. And this book party in Tribeca feels like a Historic Moment, like a 1982 convention of typewriter salesmen or the hunting party of Kaiser Wilhelm II with his coterie of plumed barons in the fall of 1913 before the Great War sent their world spinning off the precipice."

Clearly, Keillor enjoys the "reader be damned" notion of publishing being ruled by elitists. Okay, fine. Whatever. Back to Keillor.

"[Now] if you want to write, you just write and publish yourself. No need to ask permission, just open a website. And if you want to write a book, you just write it, send it to Lulu.com or BookSurge at Amazon or PubIt or ExLibris and you've got yourself an e-book. No problem. And that is the future of publishing: 18 million authors in America, each with an average of 14 readers, eight of whom are blood relatives. Average annual earnings: $1.75."

Um, I think Keillor's a bit confused. He names several POD and/or vanity publishers who produce print books, but confines their output to ebooks.

Anyway, we'll overlook that. The larger issue is that he assumes self-published work will only be read by a handful of blood relatives. Well, hello. Tell that to Karen McQuestion or Elisa Lorello, neither of whom have had traditional publishers and both of whom have been Kindle bestselling authors. (Karen McQuestion has even signed a movie deal.)

We could talk about Karla Brady, an up-until-now indie author (in print and ebook format) who's recently landed a two-book deal with Simon & Schuster.

I could talk here about my own book, IDENTITY CRISIS, which enjoyed remarkable ebook sales earlier this year. It's gotten some really awesome reviews in online and print publications, as well as from readers (none of whom are blood relations and most of whom I've never met).

Oh, and speaking of self-publishing ebooks, now Apple is getting in on the act. And even the Wall Street Journal is questioning the publishing industry's chances of surviving a brave new world of digital publishing. (Jeez! What took them so long to catch on?)

But back to Keillor's concluding thoughts.

"Self-publishing will destroy the aura of martyrdom that writers have enjoyed for centuries. Tortured geniuses, rejected by publishers, etc., etc. If you publish yourself, this doesn't work anymore, alas.

"Children, I am an author who used to type a book manuscript on a manual typewriter. Yes, I did. And mailed it to a New York publisher in a big manila envelope with actual postage stamps on it. And kept a carbon copy for myself. I waited for a month or so and then got an acceptance letter in the mail. It was typed on paper. They offered to pay me a large sum of money. I read it over and over and ran up and down the rows of corn whooping. It was beautiful, the Old Era. I'm sorry you missed it."

I'm sorry, but is this not the publishing equivalent of "I used to have to walk five miles in the snow to get to school"?

And who says the self-publishing process was a quick and easy way to (successfully) break into the business?

Got news for you -- each way involves hard work, patience and persistence.

Sure, Mr. Keillor. I'm really missing out on all that martyrdom.

Like I'm missing out on using leeches instead of medicine.