Disruptive Innovation

How the internet unleashed a burst of cartooning creativity

8 December 2016

From Medium:

In 1989 Bill Watterson, the writer of “Calvin and Hobbes”, a brilliant comic strip about a six-year-old child and his stuffed tiger, denounced his industry. In a searing lecture, he attacked bland, predictable comics, churned out by profit-driven syndicates. Cartooning, said Mr Watterson, “will never be more than a cheap, brainless commodity until it is published differently.”

In 2012 he is finally getting his way. As the newspaper industry continues its decline, the funnies pages have decoupled from print. Instead of working for huge syndicates, or for censored newspapers with touchy editors, cartoonists are now free to create whatever they want. Whether it is cutting satire about Chinese politics, or a simple joke about being a dog, everything can win an audience on the internet.

This burst of new life comes as cartoons seemed to be in terminal decline. Punch, once a fierce political satire magazine whose cartoons feature in almost every British history textbook, finally closed its doors in 2002. The edgier Viz magazine, which sold a million copies an issue in the early 1990s, now sells 65,000. In the United States, of the sprawling EC Comics stable, only Mad magazine remains, its circulation down from 2.1m in 1974 to 180,000. Meanwhile, the American newspaper industry, home of the cartoon strip, now makes less in advertising revenue than at any time since the 1950s.

. . . .

During the second world war, paper rationing forced comic strips to shrink on both sides of the Atlantic. Afterwards, the rise of television news culled the number of dailies and all but wiped out evening papers. With less competition, newspapers relied less on cartoons to sell copies. Comic books filled some of the gap, but unlike the newspapers, these were mostly for children. By the 1980s most newspaper cartoon strips were controlled by a small group of syndicates whose executives saw them primarily as devices to sell licensed merchandise. Childish cartoons with weak, universal jokes thrived — think “Garfield” — while more interesting artists struggled to find an outlet for their work. When authors retired, successful strips were handed down to new artists like real estate to avoid jeopardising merchandise revenues. “Mutt and Jeff” — tired by the 1950s — continued until 1982.

. . . .

The decline of newspapers and the rise of the internet have broken that system. Newspapers no longer have the money to pay big bucks to cartoonists, and the web means anybody can get published. Cartoonists who want to make their name no longer send sketches to syndicates or approach newspapers: they simply set up websites and spread the word on Twitter and Facebook. Randall Munroe, the creator of “XKCD”, left a job at NASA to write his stick men strip, full of science and technology jokes (see above and below). Kate Beaton, a Canadian artist who draws “Hark, A Vagrant”, sketched her cartoons between shifts while working in a museum. Matthew Inman created his comic “The Oatmeal” by accident while trying to promote a dating website he built to escape his job as a computer coder.

Link to the rest at Medium

Silicon Valley’s Culture, Not Its Companies, Dominates in China

5 December 2016
Comments Off on Silicon Valley’s Culture, Not Its Companies, Dominates in China

From The New York Times:

The majesty of the Golden Gate, the windy chill of Alcatraz, the tourist hubbub of Pier 39 — Zhao Haoyu’s itinerary for San Francisco had it all.

Yet when Mr. Zhao, a Chinese tourist, arrived with his wife in September, they spent their first day wandering the humdrum suburban office parks that Facebook and Google call home.

Joining a guided bus tour with a dozen other Chinese visitors, the two became part of the steady flow of Chinese tourists to Silicon Valley that represents — despite pervasive censorship and outright hostility from the Chinese government — the tremendous influence Silicon Valley wields in China.

“You hear so much about these companies in China,” said Mr. Zhao, a native of the southern Chinese city of Kunming who is in his 30s. “We just wanted to experience it.”

. . . .

China in recent years has given rise to a vibrant and innovative tech industry that in some ways surpasses what Americans can do online. But it has done so despite a culture dictated by Confucian conformity and, more recently, the strict rules of the Chinese Communist Party.

Neither prizes rebellion or disruption, so China’s young entrepreneurs and investors have looked for guidance and inspiration in a place that does: Silicon Valley.

. . . .

Silicon Valley’s soft power in China is unlikely to help Facebook or Google get back into China. But it demonstrates the sort of influence China seeks for itself. Despite its innovations, China’s online renaissance has taken place largely within its own borders, and the country’s ambitions to create companies with global influence so far have been largely unsuccessful.

. . . .

“Silicon Valley has become a kind of beacon of cultural change in China,” said David Chao, a partner at the venture capital firm DCM. “Hollywood could impact what kind of handbag a lady buys in China, but it never impacted corporate culture like Silicon Valley has.”

Even so, most Chinese companies have not fully absorbed the culture. Many are still highly top-down and bureaucratic, and open office plans often mask more deeply conservative customs. In place of California’s sunny suburbs, China’s innovation hub sits in the traffic and smog-choked northwestern part of Beijing, crammed into office towers above malls that sell all manner of electronics.

The trend is nonetheless driving young people to take more risks and demand more from employers, even as it brings with it a problem familiar to Silicon Valley: hangers-on more interested in being a part of the scene than anything else.

“There are people choosing technology not because they love it or want to do a start-up,” said Jesse Lu, a Chinese entrepreneur who spent time at Y Combinator, a prominent start-up accelerator in the United States. “They just do it because they enjoy the lifestyle of a start-up. They enjoy choosing their hours, having small teams, not listening to anybody, doing what they think is right. It’s a new fashion.”

Link to the rest at The New York Times and thanks to Jan for the tip.

The myth of the disappearing book

9 November 2016

From The Independent:

After years of sales growth, major publishers reported a fall in their ebook sales for the first time this year, introducing new doubts about the potential of e-books in the publishing industry. A Penguin executive even admitted recently that the e-books hype may have driven unwise investment, with the company losing too much confidence in “the power of the word on the page.”

Yet despite the increasing realisation that digital and print can easily coexist in the market, the question of whether the e-book will “kill” the print book continues to surface. It doesn’t matter if the intention is to predict or dismiss this possibility; the potential disappearance of the book does not cease to stimulate our imagination.

Why is this idea so powerful? Why do we continue to question the encounter between e-books and print books in terms of a struggle, even if all evidence points to their peaceful coexistence?

. . . .

Even before the advent of digital technologies, critics have predicted the demise of existing media. After television was invented, many claimed radio would die. But radio ended up surviving by finding new uses; people started listening in cars, during train rides and on factory floors.

The myth of the disappearing book isn’t new, either. As early as 1894, there was speculationthat the introduction of the phonograph would spell the demise of the books: They’d be replaced by what we today call audiobooks.

This happened again and again. Movies, radio, television, hyperlinks and smartphones – all conspired to destroy print books as a source of culture and entertainment. Some claimed the end of books would result in cultural regression and decline.

Link to the rest at The Independent

PG says the end of printed books and the end of methods and organizations by which printed books are manufactured and sold are not quite the same thing.

It Looks Like Ebooks Won’t Kill Print Books After All

2 November 2016

From Slate:

After years of sales growth, major publishers reported a fall in their ebook sales for the first time this year, introducing new doubts about the potential of ebooks in the publishing industry. A Penguin executive even admitted recently that the ebooks hype may have driven unwise investment, with the company losing too much confidence in “the power of the word on the page.”

Yet despite the increasing realization that digital and print can easily coexist in the market, the question of whether the ebook will “kill” the print book continues to surface. It doesn’t matter if the intention is to predict or dismissthis possibility; the potential disappearance of the book does not cease to stimulate our imagination.
Why is this idea so powerful? Why do we continue to question the encounter between ebooks and print books in terms of a struggle, even if all evidence points to their peaceful coexistence?

The answers to these questions go beyond ebooks and tell us much more about the mixture of excitement and fear we feel about innovation and change. In our research, we discuss how the idea of one medium “killing” another has often followed the unveiling of new technologies.

. . . .

This happened again and again. Movies, radio, television, hyperlinks, and smartphones—all conspired to destroy print books as a source of culture and entertainment. Some claimed the end of books would result in cultural regression and decline. Others envisioned utopian digital futures, overstating the advantages of e-books.

It is not by chance that the idea of the death of the book surfaces in moments of technological change. This narrative, in fact, perfectly conveys the mixture of hopes and fears that characterize our deepest reactions to technological change.

. . . .

To understand why these reactions are so common, one has to consider that we create emotional bonds with media as they become an integral part of our life. Numerous studies have shown how people develop a close relationship with objects such as books, televisions, and computers. Sometimes, we even humanize them, giving a name to our car or shouting at our laptop for not working properly.

. . . .

The ones who still worry for the disappearance of print books may rest assured: Books have endured many technical revolutions and are in the best position to survive this one.
Yet the myth of the disappearing medium will continue to provide an appealing narrative about both the transformative power of technology and our aversion to change.

Link to the rest at Slate and thanks to Dana for the tip.

Inside the final days of Borders’ bankruptcy

2 November 2016

From RetailDive:

When Mike Edwards stepped onto his flight from New York back to Ann Arbor, Michigan, in July 2011, he was the still CEO of the second-largest bookstore chain in the U.S. But the 40-year-old retailer was crumbling fast beneath his feet.

Edwards was in New York that day to submit a plan of reorganization and refinancing for Borders Group Inc. to a bankruptcy judge. Since filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February 2011, Edwards spent months courting investors, asking them to throw Borders’ sinking business a buoy of capital.

The deal was 90% done, Edwards thought in the days leading up to that flight. But at 5 p.m. the day before he was going to meet the judge, the CEO found out he would need to file an altogether different document: a plan for liquidation.

“It was at the last minute where [investors] backed out because they weren’t comfortable with the publishers’ support going forward — and they thought that would put the investment at risk, so they pulled the plug,” Edwards told Retail Dive in an interview about his last days as Borders’ CEO.

Up to that point, Edwards maintained optimism that the once family-owned, Michigan-grown bookshop would emerge from its decline into bankruptcy. Under the turnaround plan he was spearheading, the idea was that Borders would come out smaller yet profitable. Now, Edwards found himself coming back to Michigan empty-handed — unsure of what he would tell his waiting employees.

. . . .

At the turn of the century, Borders made a fateful move that looks especially bad in hindsight: The retailer struck a deal with Amazon to sell its books online, and it wasn’t too long afterward that the retailer began to struggle. In the mid 2000s, the company’s finances began to falter despite efforts to turn around the business, such as concept stores and a partnership with Starbucks. Borders lost $157.4 million in 2007 and put itself up for sale a year later.

Mike Edwards, a merchandising veteran with stints at Target and Lucy Activewear among others, first came to Borders in 2008. The retailer had already begun to shed hundreds of stores in its bid to stay afloat, and executives rotated in and out of the CEO position like a game of musical chairs.

Soon, it would be Edwards’ turn. On Jan. 26, 2010, Ron Marshall resigned as Borders Inc.’s CEO after only a year at the helm. The board of directors then tapped Edwards, an executive vice president and chief merchandising officer at the time, to temporarily take over the role.

Edwards became the company’s fourth CEO in five years.

. . . .

Amazon released its first Kindle e-reader in 2007 and it sold out within hours. Over the next few years, the trend grew and eventually culminated with the release of the iPad in 2010 — a device that was “petrifying” to Edwards and Borders’ future.

“The iPad, in a sense, is a Borders store in your hand,” he said. “You have music, you have video and you have books. And you have access to the largest selection in the world and you don’t have to walk to a bookstore.”

. . . .

Most of the decisions that led to the end of Borders were made long before Edwards’ plan to save the business. By the time he became CEO, the company had already spent years employing Amazon to sell its books online and had failed to seize on the e-book trend before it was too late.

. . . .

When Borders finally fell, Edwards said his “eyes were wide open” to what retailers need to do to avoid the pitfalls that led to the bookstore chain’s demise. If there’s just one lesson retailers should take away from Borders’ fall, it’s this: never underestimate a transformational trend.

“What I mean by that is you can be the best ice salesman in America until the refrigerator comes out,” Edwards said. “You can be driving your taxi one day and Uber knocks you out the next day. You can be in the hotel business and then Airbnb can surround you with 20 properties with a great size at a lower cost. I think you have to face the digital impact head on and not go through denial and don’t rely on past tactics to change the trajectory of the company because it doesn’t work anymore.”

The retail industry has evolved rapidly over the last decade thanks to mobile phones and the “looming Amazon effect,” which Edwards says is having a massive impact on all searchable product categories. Store traffic is under tremendous pressure, and for retailers who haven’t already, they need to downsize their store footprints and adopt a digital culture as quickly as possible. From experience, Edwards says crafting the right omnichannel experience for an over-stored traditional retailer is no easy task.

“A lot of retailers, if they are publicly traded, they can’t take that earnings hit, so they just do just enough to have an online presence, an omnichannel presence, develop marketplaces and try to turn their stores into marketplaces,” he said. “But it kind of goes beyond that because now the customer wants a digital relationship with their brands and that’s a very different thinking than the marketing in the past.”

Link to the rest at RetailDive and thanks to Ron for the tip.

More Wretched News for Newspapers as Advertising Woes Drive Anxiety

29 October 2016

From The New York Times:

The gloom began earlier this month, when Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, sent a memo to employees that said, in part, “every story should be as short as it needs to be.” The next week, William Lewis, the chief executive of Dow Jones, which owns The Journal, announced a newsroom review that he said would be “underpinned by a series of cost-management initiatives.”

Two days later, on Oct. 21, the anvil fell: Mr. Baker informed employees in another memo that The Journal was looking for a “substantial” number of them to take buyouts, and that layoffs were in the offing.

With print advertising continuing to drop precipitously, you would be hard-pressed to find a newsroom devoid of uncertainty anywhere in the country. Companies like Gannett have recently announced layoffs, and its stock price has plunged during a monthslong pursuit of the company that owns The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune. The New York Times recently went through buyouts and has acknowledged that its newsroom will get even smaller next year. And for journalists at The Wall Street Journal, anxiety in the last several weeks has been especially pronounced.

. . . .

Across the country, those working in the newspaper industry are fretting as the end of the year approaches. Driving much of the anxiety is a steep drop in print ad revenue, once the lifeblood for newspapers. Spending on newspaper advertising in the United States is projected to fall 11 percent this year, to about $12.5 billion, according to the Interpublic Group’s Magna.

. . . .

At the same time, digital advertising and other forms of revenue have been slow to pick up the slack, leading news companies, including The New York Times, The Guardian and Gannett, the owner of USA Today, to cut costs by downsizing.

“More and more publishers are coming to the recognition that there’s a new normal,” said Alan D. Mutter, who teaches media economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and writes about the media on the blog Reflections of a Newsosaur. “And the new normal is not nearly as nice as the old normal was.”

. . . .

Across the industry, similar declines in print advertising coupled with the shift to digital and, increasingly, mobile, are driving newspaper companies to reconfigure their newsrooms.

. . . .

The Times has also announced its intent to make subscriptions the driving source of its revenue, an acknowledgment that newspaper advertising, both print and digital, can no longer be counted on to finance the company’s journalism on its own.

The New York Times Company, which will report its third-quarter earnings on Wednesday, said in August that its print ad revenue had fallen 14 percent in the second quarter. Digital advertising revenue dropped 7 percent.

Link to the rest at The New York Times

PG never likes to see people losing their jobs.

He included this item to demonstrate the great power of disruptive technology to affect some of the most established publishing institutions in the United States.

Book publishers are not immune to the same types of disruption. PG suggests that being contractually bound to such institutions under long-term contracts is a risky idea.

Newspapers Are Social Media

29 October 2016

From The Wall Street Journal:

Digitization exposes weak links. Then it breaks them. So much so that it makes you wonder what people were thinking in the first place. According to Bharat Anand, a professor at Harvard Business School, the weakest link is between producing content and everything else. Such connections “are at the heart of what shapes any digitally touched business today.” He looks as the content assumptions behind various industries and shows the ways in which, over time, they can become an obstacle to success.

To see why, consider the news. By the end of the 20th century, the master plan for a newspaper in a major metropolitan area was something like this. Step 1: Produce great journalism. Step 2: Become a trusted news source (e.g., by winning acclaim such as Pulitzers). Step 3: Use that reputation to get subscribers. Step 4: Offer the readers up to advertisers. Step 5: Market the weekend edition to nonsubscribers. And, finally, Step 6: Use the virtuous circle (readers beget advertisers beget more advertisers) to charge high ad prices. With so many steps between content and returns, this reads like the master plan of a particularly ambitious movie villain. It worked—until it didn’t.

It’s easy for investors or observers to rail against media executives for not seeing weak links in their plan. But when the business has always emphasized steps 1 and 2 (the creation of good “content”), it is “perfectly natural,” Mr. Anand writes, that the immediate reaction to a new set of market circumstances is to shore up the severed links. The problem, as Mr. Anand points out, is that, in the process of shoring up a collapsing business model, companies often fall into the “trap” of thinking that content is all that matters. To be sure, content is important. But what matters more is the connection between that content and the rest of the master plan.

Digital technologies break the plan somewhere between steps 3 and 4. In the case of newspapers, companies that made articles free on the internet stopped the subscriber flow; then other internet sites offered advertisers other ways to reach consumers. The firms that foresaw this disruption or were never relying on the same plan in the first place fared better.

. . . .

The Content Trap” is a book filled with stories of businesses, from music companies to magazine publishers, that missed connections and could never escape the narrow views that had brought them past success. But it is also filled with stories of those who made strategic choices to strengthen the links between content and returns in their new master plans. The author shows that “winning strategies come from recognizing the context you operate in, not the content you make. . . . They come from setting priorities and saying no, rather than following the herd.”

One company Mr. Anand praises for going its own way is the publisher Random House (now Penguin Random House). When other publishers were working with Apple to try to find ways to fight Amazon’s push for lower e-book pricing, CEO Markus Dohle kept Random House out of any dealings (and thus out of the later antitrust tangles, too). To understand why, look at the old master plan for book publishing: Steps 1, 2 and 3 (creating content and finding readers) follow the newspaper model except with the goal of getting books into stores. But digitization hit the industry right between steps 3 and 4 (monetizing content) by bypassing stores and then bypassing shelves. The industry focused on Steps 1 and 2, thinking that providing books that people wanted to read would get them the rest. Often, however, books bought were not books read. They were, in part, meant to be displayed in homes or on desks as a signal that the person might have read them. For e-books, the situation is different. That’s why the romance genre flourished under the digital onslaught. Random House, it turned out, had one of its biggest print successes of recent years when it acquired “Fifty Shades of Grey,” a book that people don’t claim to have read if they haven’t.

Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal (Link may expire)

Paying to Have and Not to Hold

26 October 2016

From Slate:

Imagine, for a moment, that you want to buy The Complete Works of Primo Levi edited by talented translator Ann Goldstein. If you were to buy a new version of the hardcover collection on Amazon, the price is $58.40. If, however, you decided that rather than adorning your shelves with Levi, you wanted to download it to your e-reader, saving yourself paper and time, you would need to pay $59.49. It would cost you more not to physically own the books.

Of course, it’s just a difference of $1.09. But spend some time on Amazon and a trend becomes clear: Many (though certainly not all) digital versions cost more than their physical counterparts. The Blu-ray Disc of the Christmas classic Love, Actually costs a very reasonable $8.68, but to download and buy the HD version on Amazon Video costs $14.99. (To download and rent it costs $3.99, while a used version is only $2.37). Download Beyoncé’s Lemonade from Apple to your iPhone for $17.99, but get the CD on Amazon for just $15.76.

Certainly this is far from the case in every instance—there are lots of examples of the digital version being cheaper than the physical. But the list will only get longer, raising the question: Why are we increasingly paying more money to notactually have the thing we’re buying? Amazon and Apple acknowledged receipt of but did not respond to requests for comment.

. . . .

For one thing, we’ve reached a point at which it’s the digital version that won’t let us down. Mark Dean, assistant professor in the Department of Economics at Columbia University, surmised in an email that while he could try to create “some clever behavioral econ explanation,” he thinks the real answer is that we are paying more to download because we are learning to trust the digital, easily available version. It used to be that to have the physical copy was to have reliability and consistency. But that isn’t true anymore, he said. The internet is now reliable, and with it Amazon and Netflix. In fact, they’re more durable than thephysical copy, as anyone who has scratched a CD or had a package get lost in the mail or misplaced a beloved book would likely agree.

. . . .

Physical formats, on the other hand, so quickly become outdated. Richard Wilks, anthropologist and co-director of Indiana University’s Food Institute, noted in a phone interview that millennials (of course it’s the millennials) have seen their parents lug VHS tapes to Goodwill. In other words, they have seen, and are currently seeing, the technologies with which they themselves grew up become obsolete. Why pay extra for the DVD when you know your next computer probably won’t have a DVD drive?

This is true, of course, true of movies and music, but not of books. What is true of all three, however, is that the digital version is often more trusted and more convenient, and that the digital is an accepted part of the way we live now.

Link to the rest at Slate and thanks to Dana for the tip.

Plummeting Newspaper Ad Revenue Sparks New Wave of Changes

21 October 2016

From The Wall Street Journal:

Newspapers are suffering an accelerating drop in print advertising, a market that already was under stress, forcing some publishers to consider significant cost cuts and dramatic changes to their print and digital products.

Global spending on newspaper print ads is expected to decline 8.7% to $52.6 billion in 2016, according to estimates from GroupM, the ad-buying firm owned by WPP PLC. That would be the biggest drop since the recession, when world-wide spending plummeted 13.7% in 2009.

That decline is hitting every major publisher, increasing pressure on them to boost digital-revenue streams even faster to make up for lost revenue and, in some cases, even reconsider the format of their print products and the types of content they publish.

. . . .

“We operate in a time of rapidly changing market conditions, especially in the world of print advertising,” Gerard Baker, editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, wrote Wednesday in a memo to employees. “These are days of accelerating change in the newspaper business.”

In light of the steep downturn, the Journal this week announced a coming revamp of its print editions that will include the consolidation of sections and other cost reductions, moves designed to make the print newspaper more sustainable for the long haul and help accelerate the newsroom’s digital transformation. Meanwhile, the Times has been working on a strategy to significantly boost digital revenue by 2020, including shifting more resources into digital initiatives and looking at ways to revamp things such as its Metro section.

“It’s definitely been a hard year for print in the first half,” said Meredith Kopit Levien, chief revenue officer at the New York Times.

. . . .

During the past decade, marketers have fled newspapers for a variety of reasons, including declining circulation, aging readership and the need to fund their digital initiatives.

Other factors more recently have come into play, including the growing use of data and analytics in the media-planning process. Moreover, advertisers aggressively are pushing into online video, and marketers in sectors such as retail, financial services and telecommunications are reducing print spending.

“There’s been acceleration in the downturn this year” in print advertising, said John Ridding, chief executive officer of the Financial Times. “That is partly structural towards digital and mobile and the major platforms, such as Facebook and Google.”

Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal (Link may expire)

Google Is Using Romance Novels To Build Artificial Intelligence

30 September 2016

From The Guardian:

When the writer Rebecca Forster first heard how Google was using her work, it felt like she was trapped in a science fiction novel.

“Is this any different than someone using one of my books to start a fire? I have no idea,” she says. “I have no idea what their objective is. Certainly it is not to bring me readers.”

After a 25-year writing career, during which she has published 29 novels ranging from contemporary romance to police procedurals, the first instalment of her Josie Bates series, Hostile Witness, has found a new reader: Google’s artificial intelligence.

“My imagination just didn’t go as far as it being used for something like this,” Forster says. “Perhaps that’s my failure.”

Forster’s thriller is just one of 11,000 novels that researchers including Oriol Vinyals and Andrew M Dai at Google Brain have been using to improve the technology giant’s conversational style. After feeding these books into a neural network, the system was able to generate fluent, natural-sounding sentences. According to a Google spokesman – who didn’t want to be named – products such as the Google app will be “much more useful if they can capture the nuance of language better”.

. . . .

“We could have used many different sets of data for this kind of training, and we have used many different ones for different research projects,” he adds. “But in this case, it was particularly useful to have language that frequently repeated the same ideas, so the model could learn many ways to say the same thing – the language, phrasing and grammar in fiction books tends to be much more varied and rich than in most nonfiction books.”

The only problem is that they didn’t ask. The Google paper says that the novels used in this research were taken from “the Books Corpus”, citing a 2015 paper by Ryan Kiros and others which describes how the authors “collected a corpus of 11,038 books from the web”, describing them as “free books written by [as] yet unpublished authors”. It’s a collection that has been used by other researchers working in artificial intelligence and which is currently available for download in its entirety from the University of Toronto.

Forster says that she “always appreciates an interesting use of words”, but while Hostile Witness is available to download for free, no one asked her permission to use her novel as raw material to train a computer.

“Perhaps I’m still thinking in the old way, that a reader will read my book – it didn’t even occur to me that a machine could read my book. What I found curious was that these were referred to as ‘free books written by as yet unpublished authors’ because my state is very different,” she says.

Link to the rest at The Guardian

« Previous PageNext Page »