 |

 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
I hope you all had a lovely holiday weekend (or just weekend in general, for you non-U.S. types). Monday is kicking my rear today, as it likes to do when I try to ignore my e-mail for anything longer than ten minutes, but I wanted to bring you a few quick links. For fans of crime novels, Marilyn Stasio of The New York Times has posted a handful of reviews. Some of these sound pretty intriguing. Bookslut has their July issue up. This is the first issue to post since editor Jessa Crispin moved to Berlin, though I suspect she had a hand in it despite trying to pack and/or find homes for her enormous book collection. And last, but certainly not least, Nalini Singh's latest installment in her Psy/Changeling series, BRANDED BY FIRE hits stores tomorrow. Also, thanks to everyone for their thoughtful comments on my earlier post regarding Alice Hoffman and the link between an author's behavior and your interest in their books. I'm going to try to do a follow up later this week with some additional thoughts of my own. Current Mood: working
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |


 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
I've been thinking quite a lot about the Alice Hoffman kerfuffle. I've read a number of Hoffman's books and enjoyed them over the years. I've never met her personally and I only know the sketchiest details about her life, but she's always seemed a fine writer and a nice enough person. She's enjoyed moderate success with her books; probably makes a nice enough living, though I doubt she's getting rich any time soon. I've read the odd interview and know she's had her share of difficult times and personal tragedy. Your average human being, in other words. Now, I'm sure Alice Hoffman has also had her share of bad reviews in her day. Everyone gets them. Occasionally the New York Times Book Review will do a retrospective where they laugh at the terrible reviews they gave to books that went on to become enormous classics after the fact. So Hoffman must have developed some sort of means of self-protection against the sting of a harsh critic, or even just a disagreeing critic, over time. Or maybe not. Pre-internet, there wasn't much a writer could do to respond to a bad review, other than call the publication and yell--in which case generally just an editor heard about it--or send in a letter of protest that might or might not get printed. Even once e-mail became popular, a writer needed to know how to get in touch with the critic through that medium before they could fire off a nasty note. But blogs and Facebook and Twitter are all much more immediate, and none of them require a writer to have special access. No coding knowledge necessary, no searching for addresses. Just pop online and air all of your grievances, easy as pie. There's no way of knowing if an author has always had a quick temper regarding their reaction to a less-than-favorable review, because at no previous time in history did we have access to such an immediate form of communication with an entire audience. I'm sure there are people who were following Alice Hoffman on Twitter who had never read a single one of her books, because that seems to be the nature of how Twitter works. But undoubtedly she also had many readers tuned in to her posts. That large network can be a wonderful advantage, but it can also backfire tremendously if you choose not to exercise a modicum of common sense. But I suppose the question really is, what set Hoffman off? This wasn't a case of a single Tweet that she then regretted and retracted, but an extended series of posts in which she expressed her displeasure and got rather personal regarding the critic in question. The review itself wasn't a particularly bad one, so even if it pushed her buttons, it's hard to imagine there wasn't something else going on under the surface that has not been shared with the public. I'm not saying that's an excuse, because that's like saying it doesn't matter if you beat a person to a pulp for saying something mean just because you're having a bad day. Adults need to be held accountable for their actions, assuming they are in control of their faculties. I am saying this behavior seemed very out of character to the image Hoffman has projected for the course of her career. I'm curious as to how you link an author's persona with their work. Will this incident put you off reading Hoffman's novels (assuming you previously enjoyed her work)? Do you disconnect her public and personal life from her talent as a storyteller? Or are the two intertwined, where her negative behavior might cause you to lose enjoyment in her stories? Or, conversely, might this controversy spark your curiosity to the point where you'd read one of her books when you previously haven't? There have been so many interesting media flare-ups surrounding various authors in the past few years; I'm really wondering how they are affecting these authors' careers. ETA: Writer Alain de Botton has his own online complaint regarding a review. Though apparently a much less aggressive one. Current Mood: working
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |










 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Good old Jane Austen. She had no idea how long her books would survive, or the wealth of films, plays, spin-offs, tributes, and spoofs that she would spawn. It's rather remarkable. In the spirit of Austen love, my client Marilyn Brant is the author of ACCORDING TO JANE, a wonderful story of a young woman who learns what is truly important to her, both in life and in love, all with a little advice from Jane herself. JANE hits stores September 29th, but around here (and at Marilyn's site), it's all Jane, all the time. At least in spirit. So, in honor of the great Jane Austen, Marilyn is having a little AustenFest over at her blog, Brant Flakes, starting on Sunday, June 21st. She's going to have all sorts of guest authors and giveaways, and the Fest runs through the end of the month. So please do drop by and say hello, and maybe you can win something! I wanted to kick Marilyn's AustenFest off right, so I'm doing a little giveaway of my own. I have an extra Advanced Reading Copy of Marilyn's ACCORDING TO JANE, and I thought one of you nice folks might like to have it. All you have to do is post here on my thread, any time between now and Sunday at 5 pm Pacific Time. I'll put your names in a hat and draw, and let you know here on the blog who won the ARC next Monday. No need to put any contact information here on the blog--I'll just get it from the winner--but please do make sure you have an identifiable name in your post if you're not an LJ person. I don't want to have to differentiate between several "anonymous" entries. Thanks, and happy weekend to all of you! ETA: Just for clarification, I'll send this anywhere, so yes, feel free to respond if you're not a U.S. resident. Thanks to everyone who included a comment! I'll post the winner tomorrow morning. And don't forget to check out Marilyn Brant's blog this week for her wonderful AustenFest, as well as the chance to win some more books--including another ARC of ACCORDING TO JANE. 6/22: I've pulled a name from my trust hat, and the winner of the Advanced Reading Copy of ACCORDING TO JANE is amy_nathan. Amy, please send me an email at nephele [at] livejournal.com with your snail mail info and I'll get that out to you. Congratulations!!
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |





 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Author Patricia Bray has a great post up about the evils of online book piracy. This problem is really getting more and more prevalent. It seems like every week one of my clients is forwarding a link to me about some site where the entire text of their latest novel (or better yet, all of their novels) is up for download, free of charge. Some of these sites have information available so you can inform them of the copyright violation, but generally by the time they remove the material, it's been downloaded a thousand times. How about not putting up the copyrighted material to begin with, hmm? It's not legal just because you claim not to have known that the book someone else put on your site was copyrighted. That's simply childish. If you're paying to host the site, you are responsible for the content, and for making sure that anyone you allow posting access is following the law. The simple truth is that most writers do not making a living wage off of their work. If they write in a genre that encourages them to be prolific and they can write and publish two or three books a year, they might manage to get by. But in general, they are forced to write for minimal wages and to support themselves in some other manner. It seems incredibly unfair that people are essentially saying that, while they want to read these stories, they don't feel the writers' efforts are worth actually paying for the book. I'm not sure writers really need fans like that. Current Mood: aggravated
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

|
 |
|
 |