SFWA Doubling Down
PG didn’t realize he was on an email list for SFWA, but he just received the following with the email subject, “SFWA doubling down”:
SFWA’s support of Douglas Preston’s open letter reflects our concern about Amazon’s tactics in their dispute with Hachette and the way those tactics are impacting writers and their careers. We are, unfortunately, aware that this is not the first time Amazon has used negotiating tactics that have injured writers. To be clear, we are doing this in support of writers (members and otherwise) not, as some have suggested, to support Hachette Book Group and “Big” publishing over self-published and small press authors.
SFWA is a _writers_ organization and we have fought against practices that harm writers, no matter what the source, including “Big” publishing, scam agents, vanity presses, etc. If we are unwilling to weigh in on behalf of traditionally-published authors in disputes with online distributors like Amazon, Nook, and Kobo, what chance do we have of supporting other writers in the same arena?
Even as we are signing on to Mr. Preston’s letter, we have not called for boycotts of Amazon, we have not called for members to stop publishing with Amazon, and we have left our Amazon links up on the SFWA website. We recognize that suppliers and distributors negotiate the terms of their relationship but we hope that both parties can conduct this business in ways that do not punish _the very people who provide the products they both sell._ This is not about a conflict between traditional and independent models of publishing and efforts to frame it as such do more to harm than help the lives of _all_ working writers.
Steven Gould
For the Board
, Amazon will pay Passive Guy a small affiliate commission on any of your purchases. 
Oh Lawdy. This should get interesting.
Step 1: Open up discussion about admission of indie authors to the hallowed ranks of the organization.
Step 2: Make an arbitrary decision without discussion with your members about something that a large number of indies feel strongly about.
Step 3: Respond to your own members’ annoyance by doubling down on your position.
Step 4: Collect dues from indie authors when they join the organization.Step 4: Wonder what just happened.
*Liking your post in the only way I can. Ghost-liking.
And I refuse to accept using “impacting” as a verb.
Terri
PS: Consider this another “ghost-like”
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit
(just thought I’d add in the parts you left out of the equation heh)
So why not criticism of Hatchette for blithely rejecting Amazon’s offer to split a pool to help writers hurt by this? That’s one of the only things we know for certain and there’s no way to blame that one on Amazon. Given we don’t really know what’s being negotiated or what the contract terms are that may be affecting things like pre-orders and stocking, the one-sided “Amazon’s hurting writers” stuff is pretty tone deaf in my opinion.
Amazon never offered to financially compensate authors. The compensation is a lie.
/sarcasm
Amazing how that keeps getting overlooked by the people purporting to be protecting their writers.
*looks up at Dan’s comment after posting*
Missed it by this much.
“Missed it by this much.”
Bill, you’re dating yourself.
I, on the other hand, am not dating myself by understanding what you mean.:)
Dan
Maxwell Smart is beyond dating. If your only exposure to him is through the lackluster modern remake, then I pity you.
Oh, I know Max isn’t every woman’s dream, but 99 didn’t find him beyond dating. She even married him.
(Sorry about that, Chief.)
I preferred Inspector Gadget over Maxwell Smart.
(I still prefer Inspector Gadget over Jack Bauer)
Just assume that I hit a “Like” button on that. I’m laughing.
Like many organizations, SFWA no longer represents its larger membership, it represents primarily the members of the board and the board’s interests. The proof of this is that they signed the letter without consulting the membership. I’m willing to bet the idea of consulting their members never even occurred to them.
There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this debacle, and they are all disturbing:
1. The board is so out of touch with their members that they assumed their opinion and that of the majority would be in congruence.
2. The board knew their decision might be unpopular and that is the reason why they did not consult the membership.
3. The board just didn’t think.
4. The board just didn’t care what the members thought.
5. The board considered itself wiser than the membership.
I’m going with number three.
Now that SFWA announced they signed the letter in support of writers — not just their organization’s members but “otherwise” as well — I am officially declining their support.
I’m going with all five.
Reminds me of The 545 by Charley Reese.
Dan
“We recognize that suppliers and distributors negotiate the terms of their relationship but we hope that both parties can conduct this business in ways that do not punish the very people who provide the products they both sell.”
So does this mean Stephen Gould and the board of the SFWA called on Hatchett to accept Amazon’s proposal for a fund to pay writers being hurt by these negotiations?
I sent him a letter on July 3, very concise:
“As Hachette is as culpable as Amazon in this affair, if not more so, will there also be a letter to them?”
To date, he has not responded. Given the holiday weekend, I was going to give him a week before I escalated; but now since he has doubled down — this time WITHOUT notifying the membership — I just sent him a much more thorough letter.
I still expect no response.
I’m betting his inbox is full right now. This had to have annoyed a lot of writers.
Why is it always Amazon that is the only one damaging authors? Why doesn’t anyone ever call Hachette to task for refusing to come to an agreement with their biggest customer, a move which is hurting their authors?
‘Cos…’cos…’cos AMAZON, dammit! Can’t you FEEL the evil?
Notice the tap dance they’re doing: First they trash Amazon, then they try to pretend this is just a friendly thing on their part and, heavens, they would never call for a boycott of Amazon. No, just a public flogging.
‘Cos Amazon doesn’t beat you up, but your publisher does.
Probably because they know that calling for a boycott of Amazon would work about as well as a pay toilet on chilli night. After all, when you throw your considerable weight around, and nothing happens, people know your considerable weight is precisely nil.
This line from your blog is so true: “I mean, if Amazon is boycotting Hachette, it’s the most polite, least painful boycott in history.”
Imagine if Amazon decided to be a d*ck about this whole thing. Hachette and its supporters would have a freaking meltdown.
Hachette and its supporters would have a freaking meltdown.
How would you tell?
That’s a good one.
That could be amusing to see at this point. If for no other reason than to show Hachette the difference.
Can you imagine them calling for all SF writers to boycott Hachette?
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
There’s probably a very simple explanation for this. Maybe the SFWA thinks that Amazon is a female.
I LOLed so hard at that, Dan.
Should have come with a “don’t drink coffee while reading this” warning, Dan. My poor screen.
Da**it, Dan! I choked on my pizza!
And you forgot to add that Amazon is a fake geek girl as well.
So she’s surrounded by pink, eh? To accustom her to the role of geek girl, as dictated by the PC let’s-get-more-tech-females crowd…
Actually, I picture her more in Harley Quinn’s red-and-black. And like Harley, Amazon appears cute and innocent, but underneath is a psychotic murderer.
Good post, but needs more “puddin’.”
And maybe a little Mr. J?
Now I’m flashing back to her cameo on ARROW.
Just read my first Harley Quinn comic today. What a great character. That hammer!
Aren’t all Amazons female? Why am I only now realizing this horror? It explains so much: why they want to kill writers (a male profession)! /sarc.
Actually, Amazon Coins (for buying Kindle apps and Amazon games) do feature a very classy Amazon lady in their art.
An Amazon lady aiming a weapon.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
You win the thread.
HA!
One of my favorite PV comments ever. Well played sir.
After choking on my iced tea I thought…Hey, Amazons were female warriors BB. (Before Bezos)
You might just be right, Dan
Dan
Today, Dan wears the internet winner crown. (give it back at midnight, tho)
An ethnic, non-Christian, liberal, lesbian female.
As much as it’s been my life-long dream to join SFWA, I’m beginning to think trying to fix it from the inside won’t work. Maybe it’s time for a new organization.
Ka-ZING!
Way to draw blood.
I just want to reiterate I had nothing to do with this, it came out of complete left field, and I protested vociferously once I knew about it. I didn’t have anything to do with the Board’s second statement either, and they didn’t consult with me or talk to the self-publishing committee at all before issuing it–at least, not the three members I’ve talked to recently.
This does not represent my interests.
That’s all I’ve got.
M.C.A., you’ve worked hard to make the SFWA a little more equitable. We’ve seen your efforts. I’m sorry your colleagues decided to torpedo everything you’ve done. This does not affect my fangirl *squee’s* in regards to your stories. *BIG HUGS*
I am delighted you like my stories! I… think I am about to have a chunk of extra free time to devote to making more of them. :,
Is there any way you could ask them to at least endorse the idea that the authors should get that compensation fund, and Hachette shouldn’t sit on it and hope it blows over?
There are some people talking about that on the forums, Marc, but I don’t know what will come of it, and at this point, I don’t know that I can get more involved.
I sent an email to the board on the 3rd asking, in part:
“…if we’re going to start pointing fingers at Amazon, let’s level one at big publishing as well. If nothing else, a strongly worded query as to why Hachette hasn’t bothered to respond to Amazon’s offer of a 50/50 split of a money pool to be allocated to the affected Hachette authors.”
But I’ve heard nothing. I’m saddened and embarrassed at this. I had just renewed my membership at the end of June and asked if it’d be possible to cancel my membership fee and move it to the Emergency Medical Fund. Haven’t heard back on that either.
Probably doesn’t need to be stated here, but just for the record, SFWA’s board most certainly does not speak for all SFWA members.
Yeah, I get the feeling that those of us who commented to SFWA about how we felt about this endorsement of the Preston petition and this stance on things were pretty much ignored.
But as Maggie said, I think there are quite of few of us on the committee who will now have extra time to devote to writing!
Actually, Hachette did respond to it.
I can’t say it was much of a response, but they at least acknowledged the offer had been made, at the same time they said they’d talk about it after they agreed on everything else.
For what it’s worth, I expect they probably will accept it after they come to whatever agreement they come to—it would be a nice PR move, just as it was when Macmillan did it. But for now, they’re trying to keep the ball in Amazon’s court, and taking them up on such an offer now wouldn’t help their “hardline” act.
THAT is holding authors hostage. “We COULD help you, but we won’t until we get our way. Sorry, but we need you riled up.”
Martin, not really. Keep in mind how incredibly slowly royalties filter through a publisher and to a writer. The earnings that the writers are losing (if they are indeed losing them–I don’t feel as convinced about this as everyone else does… but I digress) are royalty earnings, not advance monies.
And when you consider how s-l-o-w-l-y (and sometimes inaccurately) royalties filter through a massive publishing house and out to its thousands of writers, may of whom will never earn out their advances anyhow, it’s not as if Hachette writers will be seeing a difference in their income now or next week. The earliest any difference will show up will be in autumn royalty statements (probably received in November, depending on hachette’s fiscal schedule, followed by statements released next spring (maybe May). So, because of the leaden pace at which publishers pay and report to writers, it’s not as if Hachette not taking Amazon up on the offer now makes a difference in any writer’s ability to pay the mortgage this summer.
Apart from writers who’ve earned out and count on good royalty checks from Hachette (who’ll feel the bite starting in November), the fiscal hit that I assume most of them are worried about is how this standoff will affect their advances on upcoming and future deals. And that’s something Amazon, in terms of this offer of compensation, has nothing to do with.
Probably Hachette is worried that Amazon will release sales figures to the authors, or that they will pay too much too promptly.
Why is that process so slow, Laura?
I figured the financial fallout from this whole debacle wouldn’t really hit until months down the road.
“Why is that process so slow, Laura?”
Because it was established when dinosaurs roamed the earth and has not be changed or updated since.
Wait . . .
Once we have reached such an agreement, we will be happy to discuss with Amazon its ideas about compensating authors for the damage its demand for improved terms may have done them, and to pass along any payments it considers appropriate.
So, Hachette will let Amazon “compensate authors for the damage ITS demand . . . ”
So,
#01: Hachette is trying to spin this as Amazon admitting fault with its horrific demands and their willingness to pay for it
AND
#02: Hachette will pass along what IT feels is appropriate.
I take that as Hachette will likely pass along, what? 12.5% and keep the rest as compensation for its horrific treatment at the hands of Amazon.
Oh, that is just a big old heaping helping of NOPE!
Terri
I don’t see them taking up the offer to go halfsies on a fund. It sounds to me they will take Amazon money and pass it along, ie. Amazon-funded kitty, not a coop one. How big of them.
And they will decide who has been injured and how much they deserve. Well, of course, Patterson was grievously injured . . .
MC, you know this is going to pretty much kill a lot of indie interest in joining SFWA, right? On the other hand, maybe that’s what they want (?). Sorry to see you work so hard for a result like this.
I know only too well. I am 99% indie myself, Kathlena. My qualifying pro sales for SFWA happened over 14 years ago, when that was the only way to make a living.
At this point, I am no longer comfortable encouraging indies or hybrids to join the organization. Maybe at some point in the future, SFWA will be the right organization for all of us. It’s not today, and I don’t see that changing. Despite the efforts of the self-pub committee and the hybrid authors in the organization, and mine.
Thank you for all your hard work. I know you tried. I was rooting for you. I’m sentimental about SFWA at this point. Not hopeful. Best of luck in everything you do.
Thanks, Leah. I’m disappointed, but as much in myself as in them, at this point. I should have been more careful.
I’ll chime in with Leah– thank you. Although the more I’ve learned about SWFA, the less desire I had to join, it’s still sad to see someone work hard and pour a lot of time, energy and care into something for such a payback. I don’t think you should be disappointed in yourself. You tried. That’s all you can do.
One of the things that distressed me was thinking of my reception among the indie community once all this came out. I admit I’m overwhelmed to be getting so many comments like this one. Thank you.
I… guess I have more time to write books. Which is good. I have enough of them to write. :,
Oh no. No no. The moment I saw their signature on that petition, I felt for you. I don’t think anyone with any sense would believe you were a driving force. I am not remotely surprised you weren’t included in any discussion about it. (And it does make me angry on your behalf, even without the rest of it.)
My respect for you is intact and, in fact, with your posts here, has even grown. Take the weight off your shoulders and go enjoy creating.
I am definitely behind. I have only written 2 adult books and 1 kid’s book this year, and I’ve used up a lot of emotional energy feeling like I was doing something productive that… apparently wasn’t. :/
Thank you so much for the comment. I needed to hear these things. You folks are my community, no matter how quiet I am usually.
You know, as long as you can be proud of what you do, what other people do is largely out of your control. You fought the good fight… you just didn’t want to believe you were fighting for such a pack of… well, this is a family blog.
We lurves you.
There are some really good people in SFWA! And I’ve met some amazing folks through it. Jerry Pournelle’s been in my corner since I arrived, which is gratifying and amusing in a fun way (we could practically be one of those “they fight crime” memes, given how different we are in many ways). And there are good people in the organization who want to change things, and they’re as frustrated as I was about all this.
I still care about those people. It’s just that I’m no longer frustrated. I’m numb and stunned, and that means something got hurt that I’m going to have trouble moving past/around.
I don’t want to abandon those people. But I’m not sure I can help them now, not like this, anymore. I used to be one of the people in the front line, shielding the wounded. Now I’m one of the casualties. :/
Please don’t feel guilty about having more time to write. Those of us who enjoy your work will be cheering you on, and buying it when it’s ready. You’ve fought a good fight, but sometimes a strategic withdrawal is in order.
Maybe in a few years, SFWA will be ready?
I was hoping to be part of that change.
My first real boss at a big company told me once that there are pioneers and there are settlers, and sometimes you have to sacrifice the pioneers for the settlers to ever have a chance. (He had just axed a project I felt strongly about for political reasons.) I felt so betrayed by that; it took me years to stand back and see what he was doing, and learn that there’s always going to be pioneer sacrifice, so I need to go into anything new I do with that warning in mind.
I forgot it this time around, I am sorry to say.
MCA Hogarth,
I’m exclusively an indie author. I’ve never sold a thing except to readers directly. I’ve also been pretty hard on SFWA lately, even regarding opening up membership to indie authors (mostly from a “What’s in it for us?” thing).
That said, I would like to extend my thanks for your efforts. I recently took a look at several organizations like SFWA (for other genres) and SFWA was one of the few considering opening up to indie authors, a plus in their corner. Clearly, that’s because of the efforts of members such as yourself. Thank you.
Of course, if SFWA doesn’t come to understand indie authors and what they need, I won’t feel the least bit of anything about keeping my $90 per year in my pocket.
Maybe someone will make an organization like SFWA that does the job better. If I had more energy, it might have been me, but after all this I kind of am ready for a nice hole under a rock. :,
I appreciate the effort and your heart is in the right place, unfortunately SFWA was never going to be the right place for the majority of writers. It’s name alone excludes the international community of writers. Forgive my ignorance of the inner workings of the organisation, but I take the name to literally mean only American writers of the SF&F genre are eligible.
What is needed is a truly world wide organisation in this day of digital publishing and world distribution.
To be frank, I have not found ANY use for SFWA or organisations like it. As others have said before me, why would I suddenly be interested in an organisation that is seeking to save itself in challenging times, when for its entire history it excluded me? It needs new members now so I should jump on board and help them out?
I don’t think so.
I can certainly understand how you feel.
FWIW, when SFWA invited comment, I was firmly in the “What’s in it for me?” crowd. Give me a good enough reason, and I’d seriously consider it. I’ve even written about what other genre writers organizations do, in part so that hopefully SFWA would see it and consider some of those things.
Now, it’s clear that they’re just not interested in representing my interests, so I’ll keep my money until/unless we have something else that will represent them.
Yeah, I’m not really interested in the organization, but I appreciated the amount of hard work you must have had to do — only to be met with . . . this.
So thanks. And hey, whatevs. People love your books. You’re rad.
Readers love my books when editors wouldn’t take a chance on them. I wish this was something I could explain in a way that it would -take- to the people I’m arguing with.
M.C.A., I’ve been imagining you screaming and thumping a wall with your forehead ever since this mess broke. Have an ice pack and some ibuprofen.
Thank you. I need them. I really did try to explain why this would go over badly, and I was hoping that this explanation from the Board would involve… some… some something that would make it all if not better, than at least indicate that there was some understanding that a mistake had been made. Instead it was… well, what you see here.
I suppose saying my heart’s a wee bit broken would be histrionic, but I do feel like I’ve been disappointed in a way that there’s no easy path to come back from.
MCA, I don’t agree with you about the value of SFWA (obviously, since I quit, and since I like NOT being a SFWA member so much that I will never go back!), but I think you have been an articulate and persuasive advocate for the organization in your posts on TPV. And I don’t think anyone here supposed that you supported this latest move or were delighted with it.
And now all that articulation and advocating will be withdrawn, and I’m not sure there’s anything they could do to convince me that putting myself out that way again is in any form safe or productive. :/
I find this especially sad given what you had to say last time this came up. After your vociferous defense of them, I was willing to give SFWA the benefit of the doubt that they might manage to develop some relevance to self-publishing writers after all.
Looks like they’ve figured out that the way to keep themselves from being overrun by those pesky self-publishing writers is to make themselves as unattractive to them as possible.
The horrible part is that I don’t even think they realize that’s what they’ve done.
Well, PG, someone obviously got a burr in a sensitive place if the SFWA board felt the need to defend themselves to you, a non-member. Maybe the the criticisms in the comments here hit a little close to home.
I always try to stay on the good side of the commenters here, Suzan.
Just so I’m clear on this, the SFWA is condemning Amazon’s tactics in this negotiation, which literally has nothing to do with writers. At the same time, they’re glossing over Hachette’s tactics, including the aforementioned rebuff of Amazon’s 50/50 pool offer, which is deliberate and petty, and shows no regard for their writers. Hmmm.
Yep, the SFWA is so pro-writer (and reader), that they’re cheerleading for an outcome that would raise book prices significantly, thereby hurting everyone but Hachette.
Yeah, I’m convinced. I assume that once this whole thing has been resolved either way, the SFWA will return to its constantly hammering away at the Big 5 for keeping a knife to most of their authors’ throats. Except not.
Pro tip, guys: If you don’t want to be misunderstood, get off your arse, do some research, and compose your own letter.
To explicitly expand on that, while no one knows what Amazon and Hachette are arguing about except them, and they are bound by NDA not to talk about it, under most theories, the arguments are about retail discounting. That means that even if Hachette is completely successful, Hachette authors will not get ANY more money, because the final retail price is irrelevant to their royalty percentages.
Think about that.
Unless the law of supply and demand literally does not apply to Hachette books (increased price equals decreased demand in a normal market) if Hachette wins Hachette authors are guaranteed to come out worse. It is mathematically certain, or nearly so.
Now, in the long run, maybe the increased profit to Hachette keeps Hachette in business and Amazon on its toes and so forth, but the only thing we absolutely know is that if Hachette wins Hachette authors will suffer. Period, full stop.
I think you just made my brain explode. I had never followed the thought that far, mostly because it doesn’t affect my bottom line.
God, you people are smart. I love it here:)
“he only thing we absolutely know is that if Hachette wins Hachette authors will suffer.”
In that case, if Hachette wins, agents representing Hachette authors will also suffer. But I’ve yet to see an agent come out against Hachette. What am I missing?
Well, since all the Big Five are essentially the same horrible, putrid, slow-moving blob at this point, I’m sure the agents want to stay on Hachette’s good side so they can continue to sell to the rest of the Big Five without being blacklisted.
“I’ve yet to see an agent come out against Hachette. What am I missing?”
ROFL!!!
Oh, what a sly, droll wit you have. (wiping tears of mirth from eyes)
….Oh, wait… Was that a serious question? About why literary agents aren’t challenging a publisher over authors’ rights and earnings?
ROFL!!!! (helpless with hilarity)
Oh God, how ironic would it be if the Hachette authors ended up arguing for what essentially will be a pay *cut* (when the book prices go up and demand inevitably goes down)? The very same people who are claiming that Amazon is making their lives harder…
That’s how I see it.
And SFWA has just delivered their own ‘coup de grace’ on getting Indie membership.
Trade publishing has become such a small pond – all this thrashing around isn’t going to leave them much water.
Sorry, Marc, I object. We absolutely do know what the negotiation is about. Arnaud Nourry said back in May that he was going to the US to negotiate for control of the retail price of Hachette’s ebooks. And he said that Amazon didn’t want that.
Sustained, with the caveats that a) that was a while ago and b) trusting them to do what they say they’ll do is a course of action with uncertain reliability.
Not true. The practice they — and note I say they, since I have not signed that petition and I do not agree with this new statement — condemn is that Amazon has removed the pre-sale button from Hatchette books during this negotiation between Hachette and Amazon. This is said to have been don to put pressure on Hachette by harming authors. Amazon has taken the trouble to tell potential pre-order customers how to go to Amazon’s competitors to place pre-orders. Of course it is much more convenient to pre-order from Amazon particularly if you have that premium subscription deal that pays the shipping.
This harms only writers with upcoming books that can be pre-ordered. Pre-orders do affect print runs — a lot of pre-orders will get more books printed. Of course this tends to affect only Big Name writers with big advances hoping for the best seller list, not the average member of SFWA.
Amazon could say that to accept a pre-order for a product that, if the negotiations with Hatchette fail, Amazon will not be able to deliver, would be something like fraud, but I do not know if they have said that. It would seem an unwise action, to take pre-orders to sell a product at a given price before you know what price you will have to pay to buy that product in order to ship it.
The SFWA letter brings the word ‘stonewalling’ to my mind.
Hey, it’s Jerry Pournelle! I love your books!
And yes, good point about this really only affecting a small portion of authors, anyway.
I may be wrong, but the understanding I have is that the pre-order button is a feature special to Amazon, such that Amazon only enables it if the appropriate co-op has been paid. IE, you don’t get a pre-order button as a matter of course, you have to pay for it, just like you have to pay to get your book set out in the bookstore window.
Hi Jerry – Thanks for weighing in with some very good points. Good to see you.
Very well said.
Some folks would do well to remember that indie authors don’t get the option of a pre-order button either. Of course, most of us are in that category of writers you mention that aren’t particularly benefited by such a thing.
Smashwords has pre-orders for Apple, B&N and Kobo.
Just finished reading about them.
Well. Shucks for them, I guess?
Pre-orders are dumb. I’m a reader. I want books now, not at some arbitrary date some random corporation chose so as not to crowd other titles.
If the negotiations fall completely through, won’t Amazon lose the right to sell Hachette books? If I wasn’t sure I’d be able to sell something in a month, I’d stop taking preorders on it, too.
Right. Amazon already went through that with Salinger’s Hapworth. They ended up taking pre-orders for a book that was never published.
Actually, I like pre-order buttons. I use them VERY seldom, since I’m a cautious buyer. But when I’m alerted (by word of mouth, a blog post, a comment somewhere) to an upcoming book that I KNOW I want to buy, the pre-order button means I can get it now and not have to make a note somewhere or try to remember the book will be coming out, etc., etc.
That said… You know, over the years, at least six publishers have dumped me or folded under me. One of those publishers ran off with my royalty earnings. One major house repeatedly told me IN WRITING they were going to pirate a book of mine and there was nothing I could do about it (fortunately, the sincere threat of a lawsuit I’d certainly win changed their minds). Another major house DID pirate a book of mine, and my legal bill rose to hundreds as they kept ignoring communucation from my lawyer (though we eventually managed to resolve the situation). I’ve had editors to whom I was under contract and agents who were earning commission income from my work tell me my work was “s***,” “disappointing,” “mediocre,” “grade B,” and insult me personally in numerous ways. I’ve endured several periods of my life when I couldn’t pay my rent or bills because publishing houses were taking 5-7-9 months to pay me for delivered work and 2-3 years to release the work (when I get the final advance payment).
So writers complaining bitterly in public, having collective hysterics, and urging boycotts because one retailer has removed the PRE-ORDER BUTTON from their next release?
Oh, go cry me a f****** river, you candy-assed whiners.
(I seldom use profanity and almost never in public. But I’m so fed up and disgusted.)
Laura, I’ve never read any of your fiction, but you’ve just made a new fan.
Seems I’ve some shopping to do.
And I won’t try to tell you what store to shop at or what format to buy. That’s between you and your god.
No, you don’t use profanity in public, Laura. However, I am very glad to see you do it because it sums up the situation rather nicely.
“So writers complaining bitterly in public, having collective hysterics, and urging boycotts because one retailer has removed the PRE-ORDER BUTTON from their next release?
Oh, go cry me a f****** river, you candy-assed whiners.”
This is pretty much my opinion about the situation as well. Plus, you saved my cussing allotment for the day, so I can use it elsewhere. Thanks!
Will, I’m with you. I NEVER EVER pre-order books. Not by my favorite authors, not by anyone. I’ve seen pre-order prices be higher than the price when the book actually comes out and can be delivered. As for a King or Coben book that I want in HC, I will go to Costco or Sam’s Club and buy it for whatever they are selling it for.
I’ve bought a LOT of books over my reading lifetime (can’t fit them into my house anymore) and I’ve never pre-ordered a book.
To be fair, Amazon does a thing where if the price falls between the time you preorder and the time it ships, you always get the lower price. I’ve done it on a couple of things I really wanted to have right when they came out. And they usually ship a couple days early so it arrives on or slightly before the street date.
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that. I had noticed when buying the DIVERGENT books for my kids that the preorder price was whatever it was, and when it actually came out, the listed price was lower. I figured that if you ordered it at a certain price, that’s the price you’d get.
Yep. I have pre-ordered Koontz and Butcher and some others (I’m getting ready to preorder a Kinuko Craft calendar). Why? You get charged the LOWEST price it fell to during the entire pre-order period up to the actual day of release (so if it was 11 bucks when you pre-ordered it, but it fell to 9 bucks the day before release, and then back up to 10 on the day of release, you get charged 9 bucks–the lowest price during the time of your preorder to release.)
I love that feature on Amazon. My husband hadn’t been aware of it and was surprised when he got an email letting him know that the book had been discounted so it actually cost him x instead of y saving him z.
I use the pre-order buttons for a few ebooks when I notice they are discounting them as I’ve noticed a tendency of further discounting. I only do this for a few authors and I have a max $5.99 (books without lending) I’ll pay for an ebook so this doesn’t happen very frequently.
Oh man Jerry Pournelle? I love the internet!
What does the SFWA do?
Apparently they do willful ignorance really well.
Snap.
I recently took a look at what SFWA does, compared to other genre writers organizations over at my blog.
The conclusion and answer to your question? Not all that much, apparently.
SFWA was formed when Damon Knight, who founded the National Fantasy Fan Federation, decided that SF pros needed an organization separate from fandom to represent the interests of those who write and publish science fiction in America. Of course there were many fans who wrote and published sf, but Damon was concerned for the pros who wrote for the income (although not too many made a living at this racket then; more do now). Pros were people who made a decent income from writing and publishing SF in America.
Contracts were terrible in those days, and there was no Internet, and trading contract information was dangerous; SFWA tried to remedy that. We also did contract analysis, told members what contract terms were probably negotiable and which ones the publisher might go to the wall for, held each others hands when we decided to all refuse a particular contract grab, and lots of other stuff.
Mostly that’s what SFWA is suppose to do now, but it’s a lot bigger than it used to be — I probably was a personal friend of more than half the members and knew on a first name basis about half the rest when I wsa President — and it’s a lot harder to govern.
And lately it is having problems assimilating Independently Published professionals, who look to some of the old timers a lot like fans with vanity press connections. But they’re learning. Or I thought they were. More over on my web site, which you can find if you can spell my name.
Jerry Pournelle
For the orthographically challenged: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/view/
I actually have nothing to add here. I just wanted to blockquote this, because it made me want to shake your hand and buy you a drink, Jerry.
I was going to say something about certain classes of writers supposedly being somehow inferior to others, but I can’t think of a nice way to say it.
I think lately it’s really certain classes of writers attempting to claim superiority over others. The SFWA’s hand-wringing over whether indie authors can be part of their group is akin to its members lamenting “fake geek girls” (which Dan alluded to up above).
For the record, Will, my name is not spelled “D-A-N”.
Ask Don Maass. I’m sure he can come up with a good metaphor….
…that involves livestock heading to the slaughterhouse. Moo!
For those who cannot spell Jerry’s name, here’s the link:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/sfwa-responds-and-other-matters/
Jerry also pops up on TWIT (this week in tech) every now and then. So I hear his voice in my head when I read his posts. He has a very distinctive voice
He’s very interesting and he says nice things about how Amazon treats authors.
Proof positive that some folks will always have a clue and class. Can’t say I have always agreed with Jerry Pournelle, but I will always respect his opinion.
Jerry advised me directly to self publish.
I said it on the other SFWA thread and I’ll say it again here: how much do you want to bet that there are more science fiction and fantasy writers MAKING A LIVING as science fiction and fantasy writers who do NOT qualify for membership in SFWA than SFWA members who actually are? For some idea on how ridiculous that disparity is, check out the “Indie Authors Quitting Their Day Jobs” thread on this blog.
When I decided that I wanted to write professionally back in 2007, SFWA membership was a major career goal of mine–a future milestone that I looked to as a sign that I had “made it.” Now that I actually am making it, I have no desire to have anything whatsoever to do with the SFWA. As far as I’m concerned, the organization is as irrelevant as it is toxic.
I guess I’m just dumb. How is anything Amazon doing in any way harming writers? They’ve offered to PAY the writers who are being affected by this and have reportedly done so in the past.
WTF are these guys talking about?
Well since they’re doubling down, I think it’s pretty clear how they feel about their members. All the members can do is decide for themselves whether they agree. I’d be shocked if they don’t lose at least some authors over this unless the entirety of their membership makes their living in other industries outside of publishing.
I guess what they meant to say was that they are “dumbing down”.
And why do they refer to it as “big” publishing? Those quotation marks seem… odd at best. Does the SFWA board see anything small about this gigantic, powerful, price-fixing cartel of multi-national conglomerates?
My guess is that it’s to prevent upsetting their friends in Big Publishing.
Why is it, when I try to spend a day focused on my writing, that things happen unexpectedly and I don’t catch up until I take a breather?
I was half-hearted about SFWA – wondering if there was any value in trying to join [as an indie writer] – now I am totally away from them. Sheesh!
I haven’t been writing anyway – my boys have been traveling today, so I was glad for the distraction.
(They landed safely a little over an hour ago. Older Son, who lives in the city where the airport is, should be back at his place by now, Younger Son is presumably on the shuttle van that will bring him 100 miles down the freeway to us. They’re 25 and 18. You worry no matter how old they are.)
Derp.
That’s all I’ve got for this one. What total idiocy.
From what I’m seeing here, SFWA seems to have become just about as useless and behind the times as the Authors Guild.
I marvelled at M.C.A. Hogarth’s posts about (potentially) allowing self-publishers into SFWA. Of all the genres, I’d have expected the science fiction trade group to have entered the modern world, but they’re apparently way behind the romance writers.
I’m starting to wonder why this organization even exists. Does it provide any actual, tangible benefits to the members?
I remember reading (I think in one of Larry Niven’s collections) about Dr. Pournelle’s (above) tenure as president of SFWA — he demanded audits from shady publishers and things of that nature. Do they still do that sort of stuff, or has it become one of those clubs whose main focus is feeling superior to those who aren’t members?
Nah.
Good Lord.
Wow. All those dead trees!
Seriously, an author-centric organization should encourage both simultaneous and electronic subs. If you want it before someone else, get to it faster. And if you want not to clutter up an office/desk and to live with a smaller carbon footprint, stop with the damn paper.
SFWA has not been a writers organization for quite a few years. It is a politically oriented social organization that tends to ignore the wishes of its members.
I wouldn’t say SFWA is “politically oriented” so much as I would say that the reason it undeniable seems that way is a symptom of its habitual focus on personalities rather than on the writing profession.
I’ve been a member of Novelists, Inc. since it was founded 20+ years ago and have been very active in the organization. You how many Ninc members have politics that I disagree with? No? Well, ME, NEITHER. Nor should I.
Because the focus of NINC is the craft and profession of being career novelists in commercial fiction, =not= our personal politics–which we are expected to leave at the door when we participate in Ninc (whether “participate” means serve on the BoD, work on a committee, write articles and columns for the monthly publication, post on the Ninc blog, or chat in Ninc’s private online group).
Your personality problems don’t belong in your professional organization. (Using a generic “you” here.) Nor do your personal politics. They may well be the focus of your fiction, they might dominate your personal life, you may be willing to kill or die for them… but they’ve got no business derailing projects, advocacy, information, networking, and discussion in an organization focused on the craft and business of being a professional novelist. Just as there are many other settings in which your personal issues and politics don’t belong. (Honestly, who does into their dog’s obedience class or their kid’s band concert or goes to the BMV to register their car, and starts shrieking their sociopolitical views there? NO ONE who should ever be out in public, that much is certain.)
But SFWA has long maintained, in both cultural and official ways, that members’ personal politics and private sociological views belong in SFWA, and it has been stated many times in SFWA venues that it’s a violation of SFWA’s values to tell someone to put a cork in it and stick to business.
By contrast, in Ninc, if you drag your politics into the discussion, you are immediately reminded by everyone, both officers and members, that this isn’t the place for it, this is a peers’ organzation for career novelists and focuses on our profession, not a forum for your personal politics. And because that’s the internal culture of the organization, as well as its official position, people who feel they MUST TALK ABOUT THEIR POLITICS or MUST PURSUE THEIR SOCIOPOLITICAL AGENDA IN ALL VENUES aren’t attracted to Ninc, so they don’t join and/or they soon leave. (Similarly, people who want to join a writers organization in order to share their personal problems, get laid, or bully others aren’t attracted to Ninc, either, and also don’t stay long.)
So IMO, the endless political tensions and battles that characterize SFWA are just a symptom of SFWA’s internal culture of focusing on personalities rather than on the profession.
“But SFWA has long maintained, in both cultural and official ways, that members’ personal politics and private sociological views belong in SFWA, and it has been stated many times in SFWA venues that it’s a violation of SFWA’s values to tell someone to put a cork in it and stick to business.”
Oh, that explains all the nasty brouhahas I keep hearing about.
I much prefer the NINC set-up. I don’t want the political or personal stuff mixed with the business stuff. Oh, the horror.
What’s happening at the SFWA is an object lesson for me, especially when people talk about forming an organization for all writers.
This is why, in my post on the subject of forming a “union” came up, I specifically did NOT include advocacy in the list of things I wanted in a professional writer’s organization.
Gah. I’m a member, but the SFWA is just embarrassing these days.
Just to clarify, I don’t think -any- BoDs would consult the membership before deciding on a response (sign or not-sign) to something like the Preston letter.
Opening a discussion with the membership is a months-long endeavor in a large organization, and you tend only to do it when there’s something big on the table (such as considering a change to membership qualifications).
A discussion among a group of 600 people (Novelists, Inc., of which I am a past-president) or a group of 1600-1800 (I think that’s SFWA’s size?) or a group of 9000 (the was RWA’s size the last time I checked, which as several years ago) is a long, complicated, and time-consuming process.
That is one of the many reasons organizations elect a BoD. Most decisions in an organization need to be discussed and made by a smaller group of people in order for it to be efficient. And even in a very well run organization where the BoD is sensitive to member input, there are always going to be a percentage of members who are unhappy with any given action, inaction, decision, or area of focus.
The organization is a big ship, and the BoD are the bridge crew. They make decisions every week (and, in my own experience, almost every day) that don’t get run past the membership for discussion or consensus.
That said, I think the decision to endorse the Preston letter was silly, short-sighted, lazy, and a decision that makes me glad, once again, that I’m not a SFWA member. But not because they didn’t take the pulse of the memberhsip first–and, indeed, I strongly suspect that if they HAD asked for membership discussion on this, it would have lasted until after the Amazon-Hachette situation was resolve and would STILL not have given the BoD a clear direction for representing the views of the overall membership on this matter.
I also think that if SFWA wanted to make a statement about the Am-Hach dispute, it should have bothered to research and write its own statement, as someone above has already noted, rather than signing that reality-free, logic-deficient letter by Preston. If you want to take a side in public, you should do it intelligently. If you’re not prepared to make the effort, then don’t embarrass your organization by lazily signing off on a piece of nonsense like that.
My view, anyhow.
Finally, for all that self-published writers are reacting to SFWA’s position on this as demonstrating that it’s unfriendly to indies and offers them nothing… Frankly, the reason I left SFWA was that I felt the same way about SFWA’s attitude to writers like me and what it offered us–and I primarily write for traditional publishers in sf/f.
Although there were a number of hardworking people in SFWA who kept trying to professionalize the organization over the years (and who will no doubt continue to do so), the organization has never IMO been able to overcome its origins as primarily a dysfunctional social club. That remained its internal culture and its focus for the =20 years= that I kept paying dues and waiting for SFWA to grow up and focus on the business and the profession. So it’s not as if, hey, it great for me as a traditionally-publishing sf/f writer, but not so much for indies. It was a waste of dues and focus for me, too, and I regret that I didn’t wise up and leave a lot sooner than I did. (I blame my optimism. Every time someone like MCA Hogarth said, but it’s CHANGING–really!… I decided to re-up for another year and see if that was true. But despite a few people trying very hard to make it so, it never happened.)
Yeah, the whole point of a Board of Directors in this type of organization is to make good decisions and this was monumentally stupid. Better to remain silent and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Do not speak unless you can improve the silence.
With their ill-considered missive, Steven Gould et alia did not improve the silence.
“…its origins as primarily a dysfunctional social club.
This is exactly what has (and did) turn me off to SWFA. I’ve been writing for decades, the last one-and-a-half seriously. Was I able to get a publishing contract? I got close a few times, but no (lucky for me). But I’ve been serious about my craft and treat it like a second job. Despite this, I’m unwelcome in a professional organization.
Okay, I can understand that an organization has to draw some kind of line for membership. But they can’t offer an associate membership? They can’t offer any kind of inclusion to people who write but aren’t “pros” by their definition?
So yeah, it ends up looking like a cool kids’ club.
SFWA is a _publishers_ organization and we have fought against practices that harm publishers, no matter what the source, including “independent” publishing, book digitization, vanity presses, etc.
FTFY, SFWA.
Bob Mayer summed it up cogently in a comment on Teleread the other day when he said about SFWA and the AG, “It seems the main point of these organizations is to support publishing as it is, not authors.”
SFWA membership qualifications EXPRESSLY support publishing as is. I am aware that SFWA are working toward qualifications that will include self-published authors, but to call their speed of progress on this matter glacial is an insult to glaciers.
There was a day when I aspired to SFWA membership. The sun has set on that day. A new day has dawned.
I may move back to Austin just to have the camaraderie of the SlugTribe again.
Oh, what to do? Go with a traditional publisher and get up to 15% royalties, or self publish with KDP and get at least 35%? Man, it’s such a hard decision! /s
SFWA run the website Writer Beware – this has been very valuable to me- ignorant writer from the other side of the planet – keen to get my book published. All praise for this one brilliant service which I am sure has saved thousands of writers the heartbreak of being scammed.
http://www.sfwa.org/other-resources/for-authors/writer-beware/
So far as I know there is no other such comprehensive service covering the full gamut of fraudsters, thieves & scammers. It is a service every country needs to contribute local rip-offs to. Just my 2c
Yep. That’s a good deed.
Funny: until this moment, I’d associated Writer Beware solely with Victoria Strauss and AC Crispin. I started reading it too many moons ago to count, now, but I’d literally never, until this moment, realized it was an SFWA entity.
Fascinating.
Also, from a recent (as of this writing) WB post:
(They’re right you don’t need a middleman to get to a middleman, but I’m unclear why one requires a middleman at all, nevermind why one would be recognized.)
If ‘literary agents are the ONLY recognized middlemen’, it’s because publishers are too stupid to recognize that they themselves are middlemen.