ATTENTION-GRABBING HEADLINE!

Last night, following a week that has left me physically drained (and isn't over yet; I've got outdoor, work-related stuff tonight and tomorrow), I collapsed in my chair and popped over to Facebook. Pretty much tops on my list--Facebook apparently having it wasn't yet time to arbitrarily change my news feed from 'most recent' to 'top stories'--was an article linked from a friend of mine:

REPORT: AMAZON TO BUY SIMON & SCHUSTER

Whoa.

The teaser below the header said, "The publishing world could be turned onto its head with a recent revelation that Amazon is in talks to purchase big 5 publisher Simon and Schuster."

Double whoa.

I immediately made a comment on the article, along the lines of "I don't think that's a good idea" or something like that. Not that it might not be a good idea for Amazon, or even Simon & Schuster. Something like that could be a boon to both companies (I'm not saying it is; I don't know). The reason such a  thing might be bad is because it would potentially further narrow choices for consumers and for authors, and I believe diversity and competition is better for everyone--including the corporations and companies. Anyway, I made my comment, then I clicked on the link and started reading the article.

Within a few paragraphs, I went back and deleted my original comment, and put on a new one, in which I said I would hold off until I did more research.

And then I reached the end of the article, and I was fairly disgusted.

There were two updates appended to the end of the article (though neither one had a time stamp). The first said 'many sources'--and this was the first mention of any sources at all in the entire article, by the way--were claiming the discussions were about ebook pricing, though the author tried to debunk this. The second update, however, made it clear that the 'negotiations' were about 'a number of issues', mainly aimed at avoiding the sort of mess that Amazon and Hachette are mired in. Hmm. Seems reports of a purchase were way overblown, and were taken from an interview CBS President Les Moonves did with Fortune magazine recently (CBS owns Simon & Schuster). See this article at Publishers Weekly. There's no fire here. There's not even any smoke.

So, rather than yet another massive shakeup in the publishing world, it seems we were victimized by the following:

-an attention-grabbing headline

Should make for some spectacular viewing

-a 'news' story that was more analysis than fact-finding
-a failure to update the headline when the actual facts disputed the headline
-shoddy research

In looking at the original article again, there is no investigation; the writer even says "no one seems to know what the discussions are about". However, someone chose to put an attention-grabbing headline on the top of the 'story' in an effort to drive traffic. This is nothing new; newspapers and magazines have always screamed at us from the newsstands, anything to get you to pick it up and buy it. While this headline didn't quite sink to the level of the Weekly World News, it was provocative, and I bet it got a lot of traffic. The lesson for the day: read all the way to the end, think about what you're reading, and look for other sources. Have a great weekend.

Bits and Pieces for a Friday

It's Friday morning, and I'm once more not ready with a well-organized, deeply thought out topic. I have ideas, mind you, but I don't have as much time during the week as I used to so it all kind of gets put off and we end up with this sort of loose collection of nonsense. Here goes.

-Well, it finally happened. The spammers, the bots, the spam-bots--they've gotten to be too much. This week alone, 8 Anonymous spam-bots tried to leave comments on the blog. They go in blogger's built-in spam filter, but they also come straight to my e-mail. I decided against 'no moderation' for a reason--I hate when I can't see the comments other people have made on a blog while I'm leaving my own--and I allowed anonymous posts for a reason, but no more. I suspect once the bots realize they can't leave their little self-promotions for virus inducing websites here, they'll go away, and the recent boom in visitation will come back down to normal levels. I hope the change doesn't cause any issues; if it does, leave a comment (hah hah!). Actually, if you want to leave a comment on this or other blog posts but can't, check my profile, my e-mail is there, and send me a nasty-gram that way.

Hoochie mama, that's a lot of spam!

-Interesting posts this week from Chuck Wendig and Stacy McKitrick on reviews this week. Now, if you've read this before from me, feel free to skip to the next block--maybe there's something new there. Everyone is free to make their own choice about whether to review or not, and how and what they review. It bothers me quite a bit, however, that people who do review feel like they can't always be honest in what they're saying. If you don't like a book, there should be no fear whatsoever that the author or their legion of fans is going to come after you, or launch a smear campaign against your own book when it comes out. As I said there, it's outrageous that people get outraged when their books (or their favorite books by their favorite authors) get less than four or five stars.

I find myself thinking of a routine I saw done years and years ago by comedian David Brenner. He was talking about mosquitoes, and how horrible it is to wake up in the middle of the night with that nasty little, whiny buzz in your ear, the sound that a mosquito is closing in for a bite. But, noted Brenner, it's the male mosquito that buzzes, to attract a mate. Male mosquitoes don't bite. "So," said Brenner, "if you wake up and you hear it--bzzzzzzzzz--just turn over, go back to sleep, it's nothing to worry about. But," he said, and paused. "If you hear nothing...."

I think you can figure out the implication of that.

-Jonathan Franzen made the news for a 5600-word rant against e-books, Apple, Amazon, and Jennifer Weiner in the Guardian this week. Ironic, considering his new book is available as an e-book from Amazon. See Porter Anderson for a great round-up on this.

-And for my own technology rant: yesterday I made a phone call for work, reached my target, introduced myself and why I was calling (the guy I reached is no stranger to my organization). He let me get through this spiel, then said, in a very impatient, snippy way, "I'll have to call you back. I'm in a meeting." This last was said in a way that made it sound like I had a lot of nerve, bothering him while he was in a meeting. I was properly apologetic and professional (I strive to be like Mr. Pink, if you know what I mean) and hung up without taking more of his time, but after I did, all I could was, "If you're in a meeting, why the f*** did you answer the phone?"

-I'm beta reading for a friend, and loving it. Not just the story, not just the fact that it's out of my genre (and, truth be told, I still struggle a bit to figure out what it is I'm writing), but the fact that I see things that will help me. Word choices, sentence and paragraph structure, pacing--once more I say, if you haven't beta read, you should. Help others while helping yourself.

-More on the writing front, I'm working on a short for the next anthology from Elephant's Bookshelf (and here's a great interview Matt Sinclair did with Richard Pieters, author of one of the stories in Summer's Double Edge), and, slowly but surely, I've been cracking into BARTON'S WOMEN.

That's it for me, how's it all going for you? Have a great weekend!


*Spam wall by Freezelight

Amazon Buys Goodreads

Big news from the world of books yesterday: Amazon Buys Goodreads.

Surprised? No need to be. Companies buy things all the time. And, before you freak and think, "My Goodreads has been poisoned!" keep in mind that this happens all the time in the business world. Everybody owns something else, or is owned by something else. Well, maybe not everybody, but there are some surprises out there if you dig around the ownership files of what seem to be independent businesses.

The big question is all of this is, "Will anything change?" There's no reason to believe the acquisition of Goodreads will change how I do business with Amazon at all. If you're a Goodreads user, which I am not, the questions are larger. Can Amazon maintain it as an independent entity? Do they want to? The one comment I saw on Absolute Write that intrigued me the most was this: "I'm not that comfortable with the idea that someone just handed over a big list of books I want to someone who wants to sell them to me."

This is no doubt a sound business decision for Amazon. What it will mean for readers and writers remains to be seen. What do you all think?