Sunday Smatterings in Extremis

Margaret Cannon's latest crime column features new titles by Steve Hamiton, John Burdett, Stephen Hunter, James Hall, Jonathan Kellerman and Cora Harrison. The column, as has been widely reported by now, exclusively available online as of the beginning of the year, and while I get the outrage, as someone whose work, with some exceptions, now more or less appears only through online conduits (regardless of whether big corporations or well-funded startups are involved) I'm having a hard time getting worked up about the switch. Sure, the most reader email I've received were for pieces that ran in the Wall Street Journal and The Believer, but it just feels like another round in an argument that feels tired, dated and in a stalemate, because its roots are in a dying industry that will never recapture its former glory and heyday. Print isn't better or worse than online; it's different, and there's an adjustment period, but a Facebook group isn't going to put Cannon's column back in the Saturday Globe.

There's any number of commentary and analysis on Amazon pulling all Macmillan titles for direct sale (my own should show up tomorrow sometime) but Andrew Wheeler gets at the root of much of the issues at hand.

Randy Michael Signor has his very positive say on T. Jefferson Parker's new thriller IRON RIVER in the Chicago Sun-Times.

Rege Behe compares and contrasts two very different L.A. visions by Robert Crais and Charlie Huston.

Leonard Cassuto has many thoughtful things to express about Robert B. Parker, the hardboiled professor, in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Joan Brady tells the Independent on Sunday's Danuta Kean why she's made the permanent switch to thrillers, and still retains a sense of righteous anger.

Sara Paretsky, thespian.

The Financial Times plays the Q&A game with Richard Powers now that GENEROSITY is available in the UK.

Finally, goddamn, Rip Torn.

Comments

[I.J.Parker]

It's been amazing how all those blogs about Macmillan and Amazon discuss the situation without mentioning authors. This article does, once in passing, but later focuses exclusively on producers (meaning publishers), middlemen, and sellers without once considering that without the author there's no product to fight over.

As I've said elsewhere, in that relationship the author remains the insignificant other.

[Katharine Weber]

My entire backlist is at Picador, a Macmillan imprint. With a new book out (from a Random imprint), my backlist is getting a predictable lift. Copies of all four backlist titles are available from Amazon sellers, so readers can easily obtain any of those titles, but the difference is that I will never see a nickel for any of those sales. (And I earned out my advance on two of those titles a long time ago, so I do get royalties on sales.) I can see how this is okay for Amazon, who can say the titles are still available to consumers, and they make their little percentage on every sale. But this really hurts authors. I can just imagine how I would feel right now with a new novel just out if I were still at FSG. Amazon would be funneling all sales to these third party sellers of review copies. I really feel for authors in that boat right now.

[Sandra Ruttan]

"Print isn't better or worse than online; it's different, and there's an adjustment period..."

I don't mean this disrespectfully, and personally I agree, but this begs the question of why the overwhelming majority of links listed in the Sunday roundup focus on columns from newspapers and magazines that also have their content online? Why not RTE or Eurocrime if print isn't better or worse than online?

[Sarah]

I've wrestled with that question myself, Sandra, and there's no clear-cut answer. Mostly it's a case of self-selection based on my own RSS feeds and search streams, and also because, in accordance to my own biases, I'm less likely to read RTE and Eurocrime and thus less likely to share a particularly worthy or excellent link from those respective sites. And also because some of the stuff I chance upon during the week shows up on Twitter and by Sunday morning, I haven't retrieved those links, partly out of laziness (and its close cousin, workaholism) and partly because they feel a little stale.

I am, thank god, by no means the last word on what's worth linking, and my email and comments boxes always remain open in case I miss good stuff!

[David J. Montgomery]

I've been a paid reviewer both online and in print for 7 years now. I don't care all that much where my reviews appear. I'm more concerned with how much I get paid for them. I'd rather get $300 from a website than $100 from a newspaper.

The idea of people launching a protest on Facebook is charming, but naive. The only thing a newspaper is going to care about is if a large number of subscribers contact them. And even then it's unlikely to make a difference.

[Sandra Ruttan]

Thanks Sarah. I think print has had a filter in place, some sort of vetting that's presumed to go with it to maintain quality. I know one of the problems with online reviewing is that there's so much of it, and sometimes it might be harder to screen sources. I was just curious. I'm very hit and miss with review sites myself, and don't read any regularly.

David, I agree the protest isn't going to amount to much. I agree with what Michael Connelly said ages ago, about newspapers shooting themselves in the foot by undermining the value of the printed word by eliminating print reviews of books, but I don't see things changing, no matter how much people protest.