Category Archives: Writing

Why I’ve been harping about certain T&Cs

Posted on by

Every time I’ve happened across a conversation about Amazon Connects, I’ve pointed out that according to its Terms and Conditions, authors who use its “plog” feature (essentially an Amazon-hosted blog) don’t own the rights to their posts.

My comments have seldom elicited a response of any kind. Decided absence of outrage. I’ve concluded that, for the most part, writers figure it’s not a big deal.

And certainly, the majority of blog posts are best consigned to oblivion within 24 hours of hitting “publish.” Or even sooner. They are too topical, sloppy, or just plain forgettable to be worth re-using later.

And yet. And yet. One never knows. So now there’s Blurb, a software product written up in the New York Times (registration required).

The software, which is expected to be available free later this month at www.blurb.com, features a “Slurper” tool that automatically downloads and reformats the contents of a Web log into a book that bloggers and their admirers can purchase online.

The odds that the average blogger will sell more than one copy (to his/her mother) are gratifyingly slim, of course. But for some writers, I suspect that blogs will emerge as the equivalent to collections of letters — ancillary bodies of work that will be of interest to a subset of readers. And other writers, particularly non-fiction writers who blog on topics related to their books, may end up drawing on blog posts for future book material.

And of course, there is blogfic.

So yeah, owning the rights to your blog posts is important. In my opinion. Important enough that if you do “plog,” you should confine your plog posts to news — not use them to do any real writing.

If it feels good, read it?

Posted on by

I found this via Booksquare — a Guardian story that claims people prefer books with happy endings.

Okay, I’m willing to believe that. Who wants to pay money to be made to feel miserable? (Yeah yeah that just invites a whippersnapper response, doesn’t it! Go ahead, it’s the weekend!)

But halfway through the first draft of this post, I realized that the info on the study’s methodology was a bit on the thin side, and what there is raises a flag in my Bordeaux-livened brain:

The survey of 1,740 respondents was carried out on the World Book Day website.

So this is, what, like an AOL poll? :-o

The details from the outfit that conducted the poll, Worldbookday.com, aren’t much thicker:

An online survey was carried out on the World Book Day website between January 1 and 9 February 2006. There were 1740 respondents.

The survey was commissioned by the organisers of World Book Day and analysed on their behalf by Education Direct.

Well, maybe Education Direct was able to extrapolate Reality from 1740 Internet users? Hmmmmm.

I next googled to see how other papers are presenting the survey results. Here’s how it’s framed by The Telegraph:

Book readers overwhelmingly prefer novels with happy endings . . .

and

Almost half the nation’s readers . . .

I.e., no qualification that maybe, just maybe, the poll might not be representative of the larger population.

The Mirror, otoh, spins it into a story on the Top 10 Happy Endings. How funny is that: falling back on pure fluff somehow feels the most honest of the batch :-)

Somebody stole their architecture

Posted on by

No, not the gazebo in the back yard.

There are two writers suing Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code. Their names are Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, and they have a book, too: The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. It was published in 1982. I have a hunch it hasn’t sold as many copies as TDVC.

Whether they feel their sorry sales numbers are an outrage is hard to say (ha ha ha) but oh, are they pissed that Brown used their “architecture.” As explained by the New York Times (registration required), Baigent, Leigh and a third author (who declined to participate in the suit)

spent five years, from 1976 to 1981, researching the book . . . before arriving at what they call the “central architecture” of their argument. It is this architecture — the trajectory of the case they make in “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” — that they say Mr. Brown appropriated, rather than individual words or passages.

So. He hasn’t plagiarized — not in the way we usually think of plagiarizing. What he’s done is to re-use some elements of a story that they told in their book over two decades ago (adding, btw, a lot of his own invention in the retelling).

And he was either luckier, or cleverer, or a better story teller than they were, and consequently, his book was a blockbuster.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out . . .

UPDATE: I’ve posted more here.

I swear I don’t know this person

Posted on by

Stopped by Amazon this morning, and someone has posted a new review for Outwitting Dogs.

A week or so ago, the subject of Amazon reviews came up on a Yahoo list I’m on, and someone said that they generally ignore 5-star reviews. The reasoning is that no book is perfect, and if someone says so, they have to be a friend of the writer. A shill.

Well, I do not know this person. Maybe she knows Terry (the book is a collaboration; Terry Ryan, my co-writer, is a professional dog trainer) but the book’s been out for a year and as far as I know Terry hasn’t asked anybody to post an Amazon review for her. (I haven’t either. Call me a wimp but I’m descended from a long line of Methodist ministers. Somehow I just can’t get the words “would you fake a nice Amazon review for me?” out of my mouth. And my day job is PR. I should be cynical and conniving. Thanks a lot, Grandpa, wherever you are.)

So anyway, I’m reading the review, and maybe I’m a little short of sleep, but it made me teary. This person loved the book. Really really loved it. The writing, the organization, the content, the attitude . . .

It was a nice, warm, pat on the back and I am deeply grateful for it. So citywulf, wherever you are, thank you. Thank you so much.

I’m going to go write some more, now.

To plog or not to plog

Posted on by

Found out about this site today, via Miss Snark. It’s called BiblioBuffet and as soon as I’ve finished this post, it’s going on my blogroll under daily reads.

The article that caught my attention is about plogs–a word Amazon has trademarked and seems to suggest is a contraction of “personal blog.” (Since “blog” itself is short for weblog, I personally wish they’d chosen “pwog.” It’s much more fun to say, and suggests pucker-lipped little baby amphibians, which is always a plus.) The BiblioBuffet article, otoh, refers to “plog” as a hybrid of plug and blog. It will be interesting to see if the grassroots meme overpowers Amazon’s corporate narrative.

Check the article to see what people–mainly readers–have to say about plogs. It’s not all of it good.

UPDATE: Victoria Strauss of Writer Beware is blogging about plogging.

Somewhat less “romantic,” per se

Posted on by

I’ll let blogger Pharyngula explain this himself:

All across the world, people are wondering what the etiquette is if they should find themselves in a romantic situation with an amorous cephalopod, and it is my duty to provide the answers.

The protagonist of my new novel in progress has a degree in biology. And to think I was wondering if my setup would lend itself to comedy . . .

Romance novels, a friendly-like look

Posted on by

The Telegraph has published an article on romance novels.

But the real mystery is, why aren’t we preoccupied with writing and reading novels about work, or the environment or children? Why is it always about pair bonding? “Lord, what fools these mortals be,” Puck remarked, observing human lovers in a certain wood outside Athens – but then, even Shakespeare’s fairies were subject to and humbled by the velleities of passion.

Yeah, it’s a kind and respectful article. And that’s a good thing ;-)