More people are buying more books than ever, and more people are making a living by writing them. Why do millionaire authors want to destroy the one company that's made this all possible?As an author of ten novels legacy-published, self-published, and Amazon-published I'm bewildered by the anti-Amazon animus among various establishment writers. James Patterson pays for full-page ads in the New York Times and Publishers Weekly, demanding that the US government intervene and do something (it's never clear what) about Amazon. Richard Russo tries to frighten authors over Amazon's "scorched-earth capitalism". Scott Turow conjures images of the "nightmarish" future that Amazon, "the Darth Vader of the literary world", has in store for us all. And "Authors Guild" president Roxana Robinson says Amazon is like "Tony Soprano" and "thuggish".These are strange things to say about a company that sells more books than anyone. That singlehandedly created a market for digital books, now the greatest source of the legacy publishing industry's profitability (though of course legacy publishers are sharing little of that newfound wealth with their authors). That built the world's first viable mass-market self-publishing platform, a platform that has enabled thousands of new authors to make a living from their writing for the first time in their lives. And that pays self-published authors something like five times as much in digital royalties as legacy publishers do.If his net worth was... Continue reading at 'The Guardian'
[ The Guardian | 2014-06-04 00:00:00 UTC ]
News tagged with:
#strange things
#legacy publishers
#net worth
Publishers are launching iPhone and iPad apps on a daily basis (unless you're Bonnier, then it seems almost hourly). Many are coming from the usual suspects with deep pockets--Hearst, Conde Nast, Time Inc. etc. Continue reading at Folio Magazine
[ Folio Magazine | 2011-01-19 00:00:00 UTC ]
More news stories like this | News stories tagged with:
#conde nast
#usual suspects
#daily basis
#ipad apps
Simon & Schuster requested that journalists and other writers not comment if asked whether they were responsible for the novel O, about a fictional 2012 presidential campaign. Continue reading at The New York Times
[ The New York Times | 2011-01-19 00:00:00 UTC ]
More news stories like this |