New Strategy at Borders

Lots going on in the publishing world. It will probably take a couple of days to cover everything that happened while I was away.

Most importantly tonight is all the activity over at Borders Books. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had a lengthy article yesterday by Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, one of my favorite reporters. I've mentioned Trachtenberg's stories multiple times in this blog over the last twenty months.

Earlier this month, on March 8, the Borders Group announced they would hold a discussion on March 22 on "the company's fourth quarter and full year 2006 financial results" and would "outline its strategic plan for the future." Pretty big clue that the fourth quarter was not going to be a winning one.

Yesterday, PRNewswire.com had this to say about the Borders' results:

[T]he company recorded a consolidated loss in the fourth quarter of $1.25 per share, which compares to consolidated earnings per share of $1.78 for the same period in 2005. For the full year . . . Borders Group posted a consolidated loss of $2.44 per share compared to consolidated diluted earnings per share of $1.42 for the prior year.

Yeah, there was a reason for that heads up about the forthcoming results.

After the results were announced, Borders led the promised discussion, describing how they planned to turn things around. The WSJ summarized those plans.

The article began by saying, "For six years, Borders Group Inc. has pursued a distinctly unfashionable strategy: betting big on bricks and mortar while paying little attention to the online world. Now with online sales capturing an ever-increasing share of the book business, the No. 2 book retailer is reversing course."

Trachtenberg was referring to the fact that, in 2001, instead of focusing on the Internet as the future of marketing, former Borders CEO Greg Josefowicz opted to turn over the company's online business to Amazon.com.

[B]usiness trends have proved Borders' strategy wrong. While sales at U.S. bookstores have sagged--down 2.9% last year, according to preliminary estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau--online book sales have soared. Online retailers in 2006 accounted for 13% of the overall book market, up from 2% in 1998, according to R.R. Bowker LLC, which tracks the book industry. (WSJ)

Today the man who replaced Josefowicz eight months ago, new CEO George Jones, announced the following initiatives:

1) Revitalizing the 499 domestic superstores: "Borders is working on a prototype of a new superstore design that will include a digital center. The centers will enable customers to purchase a variety of digital products, including music and audiobooks." The company is also expected to start replacing its CD inventory with downloadable music. Finally, the WSJ reported the company will "provide such services as personal publishing," which I assume means self-publishing. The first of these newly redesigned superstores is expected to open in 2008.

A press release issued by Borders yesterday said, "The company is also planning to publish exclusive and proprietary books to distinguish the Borders brand and drive high margin sales. Numerous agreements are already in process to publish titles by celebrities, undiscovered talents, and others who will create buzz about books that will only be available at Borders."

At the same time, the company plans to close 264 of its 564 Waldenbooks, those smaller stores mostly located in malls.

2) Refocusing investment on the international front: The press release also said that with the exception of "the company's successful Paperchase [stationery retail] business, Puerto Rico stores, or the franchise operations in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates" and the company's operations in Singapore, Borders will be seeking "strategic alternatives" for its international operation. Borders has retained Merrill Lynch & Co. to help them unload the majority of its 73 superstores overseas.

3) Reinventing the company through technology and strategic alliances: Borders will develop its own Borders.com website independent of Amazon.com.

Trachtenberg reports that, "In addition, the nearly 17 million readers who now participate in the Borders Rewards program will be able to earn customer benefits through online purchases, something they can't do currently with Amazon."

“We need to reinvent our business to exploit the rapid changes taking place in how consumers access information and entertainment,” Jones said. “Our ultimate goal is to make Borders a vital community gathering place where people come together to see, touch, interact, and learn – online and in-store.” (Borders' press release)

Contracting With An Agent

I didn't get home from the airport until almost 11 PM last night, and I'm moving r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w this morning. I just finished unpacking and throwing all my laundry from the trip into the washing machine. Then I need to take the rest to the dry cleaners and pick up Tribble from the vet.

I just read a column of Miss Snark's for 3/21/07 here that I wanted to mention. A snarkling had written asking whether agents charge expenses. It reminded me of my experience with this.

It was December, 2005, and I had just been offered representa-tion by my wonderful, brilliant agent. I was incredibly excited. Then I got the contract and there was a clause indicating that I would be responsible for expenses incurred in selling my manuscript.

I had been reading everything I could on this business and had seen tons of warnings against paying an agent for expenses in marketing manuscripts. I panicked. Not knowing what else to do, I emailed Miss Snark and explained my dilemma.

Within the hour, the lovely MS had emailed me back, explaining that this was a totally legitimate clause in a contract.

Several important points she made to me:

1) The "expense clause" is always AFTER the fact. It doesn't kick in until the manuscript is sold, and the expenses come out of the proceeds of that sale. Crooked agents almost always want a check upfront before they've sold anything.

2) The author is never asked to write a check. The expenses are subtracted from the first check received from the publisher via the agent (You understand, don't you, that checks ALWAYS are sent from the publisher to the agent? The agent takes his/her cut and forwards the remainder to the writer).

3) The amount is nominal. Miss Snark says her expenses are limited to $300. That's in line with my agent's clause.

Miss Snark's kindly response allowed me to relax.

While I'm talking on this subject, let me mention a couple of other things about contracting with an agent.

You should always do research on your agent. Know the genres she represents, know the sales she's made, know her reputation in the writing world. You don't want to sign a legal document with a complete stranger.

Do your homework. EPIC--the Electronically Published Internet Connection--has both a sample contract here and "red flags" to avoid here. I downloaded both and used that advice in vetting my contract. I also took it a step further and asked my attorney to read the contract for me.

If there's something you either don't understand or don't agree with in your contract, for heaven's sake address it before you sign. My agent was very agreeable to talking over the clauses that my attorney had earmarked. In almost every case, my agent agreed that the language changes I wanted clarified the expectations, and we incorporated those changes into a revised contract.

Pay as much attention to how your relationship can end as to how it will commence. My agent was very clear on this, but in the time since, I've seen some scary contracts from other agents.

Understand that the agent must receive compensation for a book he shopped for you IF it sells--even after your relationship ends. That will mean a clause that says something to this effect: If you and your agent rip the sheets, he will receive his agent's fee (15%) for any book that sells as a part of his efforts. For instance, say he offered your book How to Retile a Bathroom to six publishers. If you and he part ways and then, four months later, Publisher A calls to say they want the book, the first agent is still entitled to receive his fee because he initiated the contact. This is not open-ended. Most contracts include a clause as to how long the period during which he will be credited for his efforts will last. Six months is pretty standard although I have seen contracts that say a year.

This is one of the big reasons why you need to have a list of the publishers to whom your agent shopped your manuscript. Make sure there's language in your contract about your agent providing you with a WRITTEN list of places to which your manuscript was submitted. It doesn't have to be formal; it can even be by email. You just need some evidence of which publishers have seen your work. Otherwise, it could get sticky if Agent 1 claims he solicited Publisher A on your behalf AFTER the fact.

A contract with a second agent must be very clear on expectations regarding Agent 1. Many agents' contracts are written to cover any manuscript sold during the period of the contract. If you don't have language in the second agent's contract that clarifies this to mean only any book sold by Agent 2, you could find yourself paying 15% to two agents for one book.

I need to run. If I think of other contract issues, I'll do another posting on this subject.

Should an Artist Take a Stand?

Okay, I'll admit it. I approached this trip with a lousy attitude. I focussed on all the negatives of business travel: crowded planes with sneezing, wheezing passengers; airport security lines; the two-hour-forty-minute flight; having to ask friends and neighbors for help; having to leave Tribble (my geriatric cat) at the vet, etc., etc.

While I was grousing, I forgot what a luxury it can be to walk away from your responsibilities--even if only for three days. I love having a king-sized bed to myself, having a maid and fresh fluffy towels every day, and finding the current edition of USA Today with my breakfast waiting at my door in the morning. I forgot my toothbrush (I left it out to dry while I was packing and walked out of the house without it). I called downstairs and the concierge sent up a complimentary new brush. I love it.

Tonight another of the conference attendees and I took the Metro to Dupont Circle, ate at La Tomate, a lovely Italian bistro, and spent an hour visiting an independent bookstore called Kramerbooks. The Metro got us back to the Marriott just before 10 PM.

This afternoon, I read an article in Monday's New York Times where an "artist" drew a line in the sand. See what you think about it.

The artist in question is Julie Taymor, the 54-year-old award-winning director who won two Tonys for her imaginative stage production of The Lion King and who was nominated for a best music Oscar for her lyrics to her film Frida. Taymor recently directed Across the Universe, a '60s love story set to the music of the Beatles and starring Evan Rachel Wood as an American who falls for a Brit. She made the movie for Joe Roth's production company Revolution Studios and for Sony.

Taymor finished shooting in 2005. After test audiences viewed her first cut (two hours and twenty minutes), Joe Roth complained that it was too long. She returned to the editing room, cut the film to 128 minutes (two hours, eight minutes)and delivered the new version to Revolution.

Without telling her about it, Roth took her film and edited it himself. "And last week Mr. Roth tested his cut of the film, which is about a half-hour shorter than Ms. Taymor’s."

Taymor is understandably upset by a producer editing her film. However, since she did not retain the "final cut" rights, the only choice left to her now is to ask for her name to be removed from the film. Such a dramatic move "could embarrass the studio and hurt the movie’s chances for a successful release." It is already six months past its original release date of September, 2006.

You'll understand Roth's reluctance to give a director the final cut after I tell you that the last time he did it was in 2003 with director Martin Brest's movie Gigli. Remember that little cinematic gem? Roth certainly does. That probably explains why he referred to Taymor's "hysteria . . . do[ing] the film an injustice."

Mr. Roth said he believed that the current tensions would be worked out, and that Ms. Taymor would find the best, final version of the film somewhere between his own and her last cut . . . Ms. Taymor herself struck a more conciliatory note in her statement: “I only hope that we will be able to complete the film we set out to make.”

I'll confess that, while I have some sympathy for Taymor, it's a little late to begin worrying about who gets the final word on the film cut. She's not a first-time director; she must have read the contract. I certainly remember swallowing hard when I read in my contract that my final edits had to be acceptable to my publisher.

I don't know if my "artistic vision" wasn't that important to me, or if my desire to see my story in print was stronger than that vision. All I know is that I was very clear early on who owned my story. It wasn't me; I'd sold it. And Taymor sold her artistic vision rights, too. I feel for her, but I also remember when Anne Rice acted out over Tom Cruise's selection as the lead character in her The Interview With a Vampire. She later ate those words.

The time to think about your artistic vision is BEFORE you sign the contract, not AFTER.

Laborer, Craftsman, Artist or Professional?

I figured I'd be too tired to blog tonight. I arrived in Washington at 2:00 this afternoon, got to the Marriott in North Bethesda by 3:00 and was in a caucus meeting by 6:00 PM. It's now a little after 10 PM, I'm back in my room, but not quite ready to sleep yet.

I was cruising Publishers Marketplace when I came across Patry Francis' blog. You have to subscribe to PM in order to access that blog, but you can read her other blog (her other blog????) here. She had a quote I really liked that fit in with a lot of the discussion in the blogsphere this week:

He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman. He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.

Patry attributes the quote to St. Francis.

While I like it a lot, I'd rewrite it to read:

He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hands and his eyes is a craftsman. He who works with his hands and his eyes and his heart is an artist. He who works with his hands, his eyes, his heart and his head is a professional artist.

I've been astounded by the number of people who seem to cling to the title of artist while rejecting the title of professional. These folk seem to believe being a professional will somehow impact their creativity or free expression.

Interestingly enough, none of the published writers I know have a problem with being called a professional.

Go figure.

The Three Questions

This will probably be my last post for a couple of days. I leave Monday morning and won't be back until Thursday.

I listened to NPR today while I was working and heard an interview with David Mamet, the playwright.

He talked about the differences between writing novels and writing plays. He was vaguely contemptuous of novel writers, saying they could get away with more than writers of drama could.

He said that drama focuses on making the audience hunger to know more and to know which character they should be rooting for.

Mamet listed the three questions that a play must answer:

1) Who wants what from whom?
2) What happens if they don't get it?
3) Why now?

As I listened to the interview, I found myself thinking these were excellent questions for a novelist to answer.

Does your novel make readers crazy to know what happens next?

See you soon.

The Deep and Dreamless Sleep

Last night was my sleep study. In the event you have a burning desire to know what happens during a sleep study, this is the post for you.

At 8:00 PM, I presented at the emergency room of the hospital where my study was scheduled to occur. A physical therapist named Roger came to collect me, and I followed him to the seventh floor of the hospital, carrying my favorite goosedown pillow and my overnight bag.

The setup was interesting. Roger sat in a control room with windows that looked out onto two sleep study rooms. Since the person who was scheduled along with me last night didn't show, I was the only patient he'd monitor.

My room was like every private hospital room I'd ever been in with a single exception. It had a narrow hospital bed with the standard tray table on wheels, two visitor chairs, a television on a wall stand and a sink. I was a little taken aback by the sight of the camera over the bed. At my question, Roger acknowledged his plan was to watch me sleep the entire night. He'd lowered the blinds on the window between us so the light from his control room wouldn't bother me. He explained that he could either leave a low light on in my room so he could see me on the camera, or he could wear night goggles. I opted for the low light because the night goggles just creeped me out.

After I'd put on my Lanz of Salzburg gown and brushed my teeth, Roger began hooking up the electrodes, using some blue gooey stuff. There were 23 of them (I counted) and two belts that resembled bungy cords. Starting at my feet, there were two electrodes on my legs (to check for restless leg syndrome), a bungy cord around my stomach, a bungy cord around my chest, two electrodes just below my shoulders and 19 electrodes on my face and head. The most annoying ones were a pair of probes in my nostrils and one just in front of my upper lip. There was also a finger monitor on my left hand.

Once he'd hooked me up, Roger left me, after suggesting I wave at the camera when I was ready to go to sleep. Over the mike (yes, he could both hear and speak to me on an intercom system), he directed me to look left, right, up and down so he could check his controls.

By now it was 9:00 PM so I watched part of an episode of Law and Order, Criminal Intent, but abandoned it to read the latest Robin Schone erotic romance (see here). Robin was the first erotic writer whose work I fell in love with, bringing me back to the romance genre after an absence of many years. She hasn't had a release in almost six years so I was thrilled to see Scandalous Lovers. If you have never read an erotic romance, this is the one to read--beautifully done with tons of interesting details about Victorian England.

I wanted to watch Saturday Night Live, but realized I was getting drowsy. I'd spent the whole day running around, getting ready to leave town on Monday. I'd visited my neighbors, called the security company that monitors my house, gone to the cleaners, two Targets, the bookstore, Office Depot, and made half a dozen other stops during the afternoon. At 10:45, I told Roger to switch off the lights. Despite my misgivings that I wouldn't be able to sleep with someone watching me, I was able to drift off within a few minutes.

Unlike normal hospital stays, this was different in the sense that there were NO outside noises. In fact, I think Roger, a woman tech and I were the only occupants of the seventh floor.

I wouldn't describe my sleep as undisturbed. Usually I sleep a straight six hours with one bathroom break somewhere toward dawn. I woke up at 11:30, 2:00, 4:00, and 5:15. Two were because I simply woke up; two were because Roger woke me up to reattach electrodes I'd managed to dislodge. He also requested that I sleep at least 30 minutes on my back (I like to sleep on my right side).

At 6 AM, he came to wake me, saying that the study had gone well. Of course, he wouldn't tell me a darn thing, saying that my doctor would be in touch as soon as the sleep study physicians had time to review my results.

Stay tuned . . .

Top Ten U.S. Trade Publishers

Lots going on. I leave for Bethesda on Monday, a trip that's complicated by the fact that I'm worried about my geriatric cat, Tribble. I've been on death watch for some time now and didn't want to leave her with friends while I'm gone. Knowing Tribble, she'd choose that time to check out, and I wouldn't want anyone else finding her tiny cold corpse. The two younger cats will go to camp (a cats-only retreat), but Tribble is a problem. My vet, who does NOT do boarding, agreed to keep Tribble for me as a favor.

Meanwhile, tonight is the night I go for my sleep study (see my post here for an explanation). I'm supposed to present myself at the emergency room of a Dallas hospital at 8 PM, where I'll be led to a room and hooked up to machines so that I can relax and sleep on command. Yeah, right.

In the meantime, Michael Hyatt, the CEO of Thomas Nelson, had an interesting post (thanks to Nathan Bransford's blog for pointing me there) about the top ten U.S. trade publishers by market share.

Here's what Hyatt's folk say (I've added the corporations that own the houses in parentheses):

Random House (Bertelsmann AG) 18%
HarperCollins (News Corporation) 12.4%
Simon & Schuster (CBS) 9%
Penguin (Pearson PLC) 8.5%
Hachette* 6%
Thomas Nelson (Intermedia Partners) 4.8%
Holtzbrinck** 4.6%
Tyndale House 2.1%
John Wiley 1.7%
Scholastic 1.5%

*Hachette Livre is the largest publisher in France and the fifth largest worldwide according to Wikipedia
**Holtzbrinck is the media giant that owns Macmillan, St. Martin's Press, Pan, Tor and Forge

"Trade publisher" usually refers to a house producing books intended for general readership, nonacademic books mostly found in bookstores. Of the list above, Thomas Nelson and Tyndale House are primarily Christian publishers. Scholastic is the largest children's book publisher.

I was a little surprised to see John Wiley on the list since I think of them as a scientific and technical publisher. However, they do have a trade division.

According to Hyatt, these top ten publishers represent 67.2% of the total U.S. trade market. Remember, however, that this list of "trade publishers" does not include the textbook market, which is a HUGE piece of the publishing pie.

You can see Hyatt's post on his website here.

I'm off to run all the errands I need to get done before I leave town. Have a good day.

Art For Art's Sake?

I shot my mouth off again on a writers' loop this week.

I couldn't help myself. There was a guy grousing about all the agents and publishers who've rejected him. And, of course, instead of taking those rejections as a sign he needed to work on his manuscript, he blamed the agents and publishers for not recognizing great writing when they saw it.

I was reminded of a book that was popular in the late '70s titled The Road Less Traveled. The book was written by a psychiatrist named M. Scott Peck. While I've never been a big fan of self-help books, there was a passage in that book I've never forgotten.

Dr. Peck described most of the patients he saw in his practice as falling into one of two camps: they either suffered from a neurosis or from a character disorder. He described both conditions as disorders of responsibility. To put it simply, neurotic people think everything is their fault and character-disordered people believe nothing is their fault.

Obviously, treating the neurotic patient is much easier than treating the character-disordered. The neurotic patient already believes he's the cause of his own problems while the character-disordered patient blames her problems on everyone else.

God knows I'm neurotic. Every time I got a rejection, I assumed that it was my writing that needed work. It never occurred to me to blame the rejection on the agent or publisher.

Anyway, I responded to the complaining post by saying the following:

Writing may be an art, but publishing is a business. If a writer wants to cross the divide into publishing, he needs to stop thinking of himself as an artist and begin to think of himself as a professional. That means recognizing his query letter is a business interview, his manuscript is a product for sale, and he is entering into a contract to perform for money.

If you are not willing to perform to expectations, you need to consider self-publishing.

You can imagine the firestorm that followed. I was accused of "selling out" and of prostituting myself for cash. Accusations like that just make me tired.

The guy who'd been whining went into long perorations about his "art" and his refusal to become another cog in the machine of publishing. It was mental masturbation, and I finally responded, "You're stroking yourself here, and you don't need me for that."

I am often amazed by coincidences. Twelve hours later, I was reading Miss Snark's postings for 3/15/07 here. In a post titled "Give Me a F/ing Break," the divine Miss S responded in similar fashion to another "arty" type:

You think a writer just pours words onto paper in a fever of creativity, and originality? Yea, they do. It's called the first draft. Then comes the writing.

Don't give me one single bit of guff about rules and knee jerk publishing. It's a whole lot harder to do it than feel it.

As always, she delights me with her no-nonsense approach.

Checking In On Three Stories

I'm devoting this week to editing my newest manuscript.

I came across a couple of follow-up items to previous posts:

Story 1: On Friday, I posted about Jason Pinter's getting dooced from his job at Crown Publishing because he posted information that his employer felt should not have been made public in a blog.

Today's Publishers Lunch reports that Jason will be joining St. Martin's Press as an editor on Monday, March 26. "He will continue to acquire commercial fiction--thrillers and mysteries--as well as nonfiction in pop culture and other categories."

Story 2: You'll recall that Google purchased the social networking site YouTube on October 9th. Media companies had been complaining even before the deal was struck that the unauthorized download of music, movies and other copyrighted content was costing them billions. In the five months since the purchase, those talks have taken place directly with Google.

The companies making these accusations include five of the seven biggest media conglomerates: Disney, GE, News Corp, Viacom and Time Warner.

On Tuesday, Viacom sued both YouTube and Google in New York's U.S. District Court for more than $1 billion dollars, citing widespread copyright infringement. According to the Associated press, "Viacom claims that YouTube has displayed nearly 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon."

Six weeks ago, potential licensing talks broke down between Viacom, Google and YouTube. Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized film clips of programs like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and South Park.

Viacom claims to have since identified another 50,000 unauthorized clips. The media giant said that YouTube's business, "which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws."

Story 3: From November 26 to December 3, I did a series of posts on Second Life, the online metaverse.

From today's Publishers Weekly: "Joining companies like Toyota and Reuters . . . Bantam Dell is establishing a commercial and social presence in the popular online virtual world Second Life. The Random House division is opening the Bantam Dell Book shop March 15 with a "live" appearance by virtual Dean Koontz, reading from his new novel, The Good Guy, scheduled to be published in May."

Back to editing.

Goodbye to POD-dy Mouth

My plan for tonight was to talk about the results of POD-dy Mouth's 2006 Survey of Self-Published Books, but when I went over to her website, I found that 3/13 was the last day of her blog. After reviewing self-published books for two years, she's throwing in the towel.

Just looking at her statistics for the past year, I'm not surprised. She's been a hard-working lady.

Here are a few of the stats from her recent blog on activity for 2006:

Her mission: to find 15 excellent books

Total number of queries received: 5,267
Total number of books considered: 1,666

Total number of books not read past first page: 217
Total number of books not read past first paragraph: 23
Total number of books not read past first sentence: 8

Number of selected/reviewed [winning] books by publisher:

Lulu: 5
iUniverse: 5
Velluminous: 2
Authorhouse: 1
Toadspittle Hill Productions: 1
Sunspot Press: 1

I'll be sorry to see POD-dy Mouth leave the blogosphere. I wish her all the best. She's provided an interesting reading experience for the last two years.

Her website is here.

New Study on Film Release

The University of Missouri-Columbia, together with research partners in the United Kingdom and Germany, distributed a press release on 2/28/07 with respect to a global study about the heated debate between movie studios and theater owners.

The study, titled "The Last Picture Show? Timing and Order of Movie Distribution Channels," is scheduled to be published in the October issue of the Journal of Marketing.

The researchers focused on four key channels of movie distribution: theaters, DVD rental, retail DVD and video-on-demand (VOD). Through a sophisticated experimental approach, they looked at distribution and revenue changes by analyzing data from 1,770 consumers in the United States, Japan and Germany. Collectively, the three countries represent 56 percent of the global film market.

I've published on this subject a half dozen times before. If you're interested in the background, read my post of 10/30/05 here or my post of 1/28/06 here or my post of 9/24/06 here.

Among the findings:

Film studios in the U.S. could increase revenues by 16% if films were simultaneously released in theaters, rental DVDs and video-on-demand (VOD), leaving a three-month window to DVD retail. However, such a move would cause a 40% drop in theater revenues and might lead to the closing of some theaters.

In order to create a win-win situation for both the studios and the theater owners, the researchers suggested leaving a three-month theatrical-to-video retail window, offering slightly higher DVD prices and THEN follow up with rental and VOD releases another three months later.

The study also warned that studios needed to be careful not to alienate theater owners in order to avoid financial losses and "public goodwill."

My interest in this subject is not purely academic. Compare this to the possibility that books would be released simultaneously in physical form (hardback or softback) and in virtual form (e-books). A number of publishers are already releasing books in physical form and in audiobooks at the same time.

At a time when bookstores' margins have been cut to the bone, this possibility might have enormous consequences for the book retail industry. Releasing the audiobook at the same time as the physical book still means customers must go to the bookstore to make a purchase. Releasing the e-book at that same time would permit customers to bypass the retail store altogether.

Lunch and Surprising News

I met a new friend for lunch today in Dallas at one of my favorite restaurants, La Calle Doce.

Over Mexican food, we had all those conversations new friends have: "How long have you worked at your job?" "How many years have you been married?" "I love your turquoise earrings." "Oh, you love turquoise and silver, too?"

Then she dropped the bomb. "Yeah, I looked your book up on the Borders website."

I was taken aback. "You found my book at Borders? It's not due out until September."

She responded, "I know. I saw the publication date."

And she was right. The book--without blurb or cover--is on both Amazon and Borders. Not B&N, I'm sorry to say. But it was there on Amazon and Borders, with a release date of September 4th. I was stunned.

I had to tell you that before I take off for my writers' group tonight. I'll be back later this evening to report on a new study that came out of London two weeks ago.

It's a Masterpiece!

Okay, since I offered two posts on Sunday, I'm cheating tonight. I'm posting my Monday blog for 12:04 AM at 9:15 PM on Sunday evening because I am settling down to watch a television program.

Masterpiece Theatre is running a "Best Of" show, with the twelve best series from the thirty-six year history of their productions. I voted along with thousands of other PBS watchers and am hoping to see I, Claudius as the #1 choice. I expect it will end up #2 with Upstairs, Downstairs beating it out. It's probably blasphemous, but I was never a fan of British stories above and below the stairs.

I also voted for what I remember as The Six Wives of Henry VIII for #2 and Elizabeth I for #3. I was just a kid at the time so I may have the titles wrong.

And, of course, my #4 choice was Prime Suspect.

Wish me luck.

Addendum: Well, I was right about Upstairs, Downstairs being #1, but I, Claudius only clocked in at #3. The Forsyte Saga beat it out for the #2 place. Grrrr.

A New Danger to Our Children

I've mentioned on more than one occasion that I'm a social worker. For five years, I was the head of operations for the public agency charged with providing mental health treatment to the indigent of Dallas County.

This week I attended a meeting of psychiatrists, psychologists, treatment providers and community volunteers focussed on the problems of addiction. While the meeting lasted almost an entire day, there was one section of it that I wanted to publicize on the blogosphere: the new street drug called "cheese."

For those of you not familiar with drugs, mixing different ingredients together to create new "highs" is a common practice. Many people have heard of the combination known as a "speedball," in which heroin and cocaine are mixed together. Cheese is a combination of small amounts of black tar heroin and Tylenol. It is snorted, not injected, and is highly addictive.

Cheese surfaced here in Texas last year, and I predict it will soon make its way across the country. It is being marketed to school children as young as ten for as little as $2 a hit. Children who might refuse to take "heroin," which they recognize as a dangerous drug, are lured into thinking that something as innocuous-sounding as cheese is safe.

Unfortunately, this new drug combination holds a special hidden danger. Tylenol contains acetaminophen, which in large doses or continued use is extremely dangerous to the liver (and some studies say to the kidneys as well). An article in Parade Magazine last year reported that “Every year, too much acetaminophen accounts for 50,000 emergency room visits, 42% of liver failures, and an average of 458 deaths.”

Because street drugs are mixed without a precise recipe, putting too much acetaminophen into a batch can make cheese a particularly dangerous substance.

Also, when the brand of Tylenol used is Tylenol PM, there is a third added ingredient: diphenhydramine.

Most of us know diphenhydramine by the brand name Benadryl, an over-the-counter antihistamine and sedative. It is the ingredient that allows Tylenol PM to help you sleep. However, in large doses, diphenhydramine can result in visual and auditory hallucinations.

The San Antonio Express-News reported last year that a hit of cheese could contain as little as one tenth the amount of powder found in a package of sweetener. However, that small amount offers the user "euphoria, relaxation and sleepiness."

I am writing this post to ask everyone who knows children between the ages of eight and eighteen to warn the kids of the sneaky methods drug dealers use. They will call a dangerous substance by an innocent-sounding name just to get a new customer. They will offer the first hits for free and keep the prices low.

This drug is not "cheese." It is black tar heroin along with a potentially fatal combination of over-the-counter medications. In a few short months, cheese has become an epidemic in the schools of Texas.

Save a life. Spread the word. Please.

Digitizing Efforts Continue

There was a press release about Simon & Schuster on Wednesday. The publisher, a subsidiary of CBS, has hired Innodata Isogen to digitize titles. "Innodata Isogen will provide a full suite of digitization and conversion services for the publisher's backlist titles."

This means that S&S joins Random House and HarperMorrow in digitizing their stock.

UK's The Guardian had an article on Saturday, updating Google's initiative to copy every book ever published. The company predicts they can accomplish this massive task within ten years.

There's little doubt about Google's goal, though. "We are talking about a universal digital library." Dan Clancy, the former NASA scientist behind Google's book-scanning technology, told the New Yorker. "I hope this world evolves so there exists a time where somebody sitting at a terminal can access all the world's information."

The publishing industry remains suspicious of Google's motives even as it races to digitize its inventory. It's likely that some kind of deal will be struck down the road by which the publishers can take advantage of Google's search engine capabilities while picking and choosing which excerpts of books will be made available to a search request.

The article included some interesting statistics:

In 1450, new titles were published at a rate of 100 per year. In 1950, that figure had grown to 250,000. By the millennium, the number published exceeded a million.

It's estimated that of all the books ever published, more than 95% are out of print.

The Library of Congress in Washington DC is the largest library in the world with about 29m books among its 130m items, while the British Library has about 13m catalogued books.

Revisiting Dooce

Call me weird, but I'm always encouraged by the sudden appearance of maturity in people I have previously written off as selfish or immature. There's a huge difference between being self-aware and being self-absorbed.

Back on October 23 and 24, 2006, I did two posts on the young woman who introduced the word dooce to the Internet when she was fired for writing very inappropriate material about her boss and co-workers on her blog.

While Heather Armstrong was obviously a bright and talented writer, I was horrified by both her lack of judgment and her inability to predict the consequences of her actions. In my first posting here, I described her firing in 2001 and, in a second posting here, I described an incident that occurred in 2006 where the same destructive tendencies got her (and her husband) into a legal battle with the publisher Kensington. At that time, I said:

Charming and self-absorbed people make me uneasy. While I'll be the first to admit it's fascinating to watch their often thoughtless and impulsive behavior, it's also excruciatingly painful. There's a very thin line between self-absorbed and spoiled. Between self-absorbed and selfish. Between self-absorbed and destructive.

The recent firing of Jason Pinter (see my post for yesterday) reminded me of Heather who, of course, was the first person ever dooced. I went back to her blog and spent some time catching up on what has been going on with her since October.

Hence this post.

There was, of course, the usual drama that accompanies people like Heather. She'd lost and later found her dog Chuck (whom I'd concluded back in October was the most mature member of the family) not once, but twice. The blog was still filled with the humorous commentary that has made Dooce.com famous. But I was interested to see that there was much less focus on Heather's personal health and more on that of her young daughter.

Then came the post that prompted this blog today. On February 28, Heather posted a thoughtful and very self-aware (note: not self-absorbed) post about her firing six years earlier. She said:

I do feel like I have been very wrong for not yet apologizing to that woman [her boss] publicly, and do I ever owe her a huge apology. I know now that my frustrations had nothing to do with her personally, and that how I wrote about her was incredibly tacky. She had actually been a very gracious boss, had brought me into the company herself when she knew I was looking for a new job, had been an advocate of my design work to other executives in the company. What I wrote about her was just gross and clearly indicative that I had serious issues with myself. I do hope that she will one day forgive me and know that I could not be more sorry for hurting her.

I felt like cheering. In a few lines, Heather acknowledged her inappropriate behavior, recognized its source and apologized to those she had hurt by her thoughtless actions. In four short months (and I'm going to make a leap here and assume some heavy-duty therapy), Heather has come a long, long way.

You can read this new post here. I've also added Dooce.com to my links on the right side of this blog (under Fun Links). Heather is a talented writer, and I'm looking forward to reading more about her life and career.

Way to go, Heather.

Cruising the Blogosphere

My freaking sore throat is back again! I think my body is trying to tell me to slow down. This happens whenever I get stretched too thin.

So tonight I'm cheating by calling your attention to posts you might find interesting by other people.

Lots going on in the blogosphere. Anna Genoese announced she is leaving Tor here.

Meanwhile, a number of bloggers are posting about Jason Pinter's getting dooced from his job at Crown Publishing because of a post on his blog. If you don't know what "dooced" means go to my post of October 23, 2006 here. If you want to read Jason's blog, go here (the offending post has been removed). If you want to read some of the online comments go here or here.

Nathan Bransford started a two-part post on what editors do here.

Miss Snark has a list of the 13 ways to end up on her slush pile here.

Okay, my work here is done. I'm going to bed.

Another County Heard From

After my lengthy post on the future of publishing last night, I was interested to see an article in the March 9th issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. The article, titled "The Prestigious Inconvenience of Print," was written by Edward Tenner, an affiliate of the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies at Princeton University, and can be found here.

Dr. Tenner says: As a former acquisition editor at a publishing house, I can testify that impatient critics of the printed book are getting it wrong. Conventional print publishing is a daunting business. No matter what an organization's size, it faces challenges unknown to wikians and bloggers. A printed book, as one production editor point out to me, is really a machine with a half-million parts, any one of which can go wrong.

Tenner claims that one of the advantages print books have over print-on-demand (I think he means self-publishing) is that "somebody thought enough of this writing" to print it. He extends this argument further by saying that the very "inconvenience" of paper somehow imbues it with significance. The fact that a lover buys a paper greeting card and mails it makes it more significant than an e-card.

He then expands that argument by saying that e-mail messages are not taken as seriously as written messages.

And he says: In sum, just as luxury watches remain in demand while most people carry cellphones that give the time with virtually observatory-standard accuracy, the Web will never destroy older media because their technical difficulties and risks help create glamour and interest.

Reading Tenner's article, I imagined a dyspeptic monk around the year 1500, grousing about the fact that the printing press was replacing illuminated manuscripts. I can just imagine him saying, "You can't be serious about replacing all this beautiful artwork with THAT."

I think the point that a lot of people are missing is that READING is not ever going to go away. People continued to read--in fact, MORE of them began reading when the printing press made books widely available. The medium through which books are delivered is not as important as the fact that information/data/
entertainment will continue to be delivered.

Oral tradition was replaced by cave writing which was replaced by scrolls which were replaced by books and newspapers which are now becoming part of an array of delivery mediums: cell phones, e-readers, audiotapes, Mp3 players, computers. The list will continue to grow. That's not a bad thing. It's just different.

And, yes, I love getting a sweet or mushy greeting card in the mail. They are keepsakes, not to be compared with a book. That claim by Tenner just felt specious to me.

I enjoyed the article, but had a sense of a man trying to hold back a tide. I don't mean that books will go away. However, I do think that they will become more and more expensive. In another two lifetimes, I expect that they will be collectors' items to be enjoyed by the rich. If nothing else, the green movement to protect the environment will have an impact on the price of books and paper.

And for those of you who are inclined to say, "Well, I want to read books, not a computer screen . . . fine. This is about more choice, not less. Continue reading books if that's what you like. My choice depends on what I'm doing. If I'm driving, I like audiobooks, if I'm in the mood to read a novella, my computer screen is just fine and the rest of the time I read books. Those choices don't say anything about me beyond the fact that I'm practical . . . and that I love to read.

All this smug pomposity over books should be reserved for the content, not the medium.

Just one writer's opinion . . .

California Dreamin' On Such A Winter's Day

Yesterday, a writer on one of the loops I belong to commented that he thought print publishers were in trouble, and that the
e-publishers were not taking advantage by stepping into the breech. I thought that might be a good subject for today's post.

I agree that the publishing industry is in flux. As in "a state of movement, change or renewal." It would be a mistake, however, to perceive that fluidity as the publishing industry being in trouble.

First of all, the majority of releases each year are published by seven large media conglomerates. Those seven are:

1) Bertelsmann AG (Germany): Random House, which owns Ballantine, Del Rey, Bantam Dell, Crown Publishing, Doubleday, and Knopf

2) Holtzbrinck Publishing Group (Germany): Macmillan, St. Martin's Press, Pan and Tom Doherty Associates which owns Tor and Forge.

3) News Corporation (United States): HarperMorrow Publishers, which owns Avon, HarperCollins, and William Morrow.

4) Pearson PLC (United Kingdom): Berkley, Penguin, Putnam, Viking and Prentice Hall.

5) Reed Elsevier (United Kingdom): Harcourt and Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

6) Groupe Lagardere (France): Hachette Livre, which bought the former Time Warner Book Group, including Warner Books, the Mysterious Press, and Little, Brown and Company in addition to many other titles.

7) CBS (United States): Simon and Schuster

This consolidation of the publishing industry began in the '70s and was two-pronged, including both booksellers and publishing houses. First, large chains like Barnes & Noble popped up and used their buying power to force many small, independent booksellers who couldn't compete out of business. Second, the mega-corporations began buying up small publishing houses, reducing the number of players in the business.

This consolidation movement had huge consequence for the industry. Corporations have shareholders, and they must answer to those stockholders quarterly. Keeping the profit and loss sheet clean takes precedence over other considerations. Taking risks is not encouraged. Books that fail are costly experiments. Why take a chance on a young, new writer when you are virtually guaranteed a sure thing with a best-selling author like Stephen King or James Patterson?

Large corporations are not usually known for being innovators. They are instead notorious for jumping aboard existing trends. Erotic romance writers couldn't give away their books until the genre got hot. Once it heated up, publishing houses rushed to open new erotic romance imprints and hire as many writers of the new genre as they could.

It's important to remember that self-interest (read here: greed) is what motivates business. Although they were slow to see what Google realized immediately, the publishing industry is beginning to understand that the digitization of books offers huge opportunities. A digitized industry can do away with printing, shipping, distributing, returns and warehousing costs. It also can keep a book "in print" forever on virtual bookshelves that are not inhibited by the lack of space considerations faced by bricks-and-mortar bookstores.

Earlier this month, both Random House and HarperCollins announced programs through which readers can now read excerpts of their books, much the way Amazon's "Search Inside" program works. Publishers are beginning to realize that Google's plan to digitize all the books in the world has some merit--they just don't want Google doing it for them.

Now let's take a look at e-publishing. While I have not yet e-published, it's not because I don't believe in or respect the industry. I think e-publishing and a form of self-publishing (not the vanity press industry that exists at present) will be the wave of the future. I continue to believe that, once an e-reader seizes the reading public's fascination the way the iPod did for music lovers, e-publishing will explode.

A digitized industry doesn't really rely on the publisher any more, does it? It would be very easy for a group of writers and artists to band together to produce their own works (United Artists, anyone?). In the future, there is the very real possibility that publishers will find themselves being edged out of the equation, once writers figure a way to insure a consistency of quality that readers can trust.

Of course, while the writers are trying to figure out how to overcome the stigma of self-publishing, the publishing houses will probably be scrambling to come up with ways to hang on to their hegemony. I'm enough of a cynic to picture them lobbying for some kind of governmental protection to prevent anyone from wresting control from them. The international composition of the industry makes that possibility unlikely. What is far more likely is that the industry will decentralize again, breaking up into lots of smaller publishing houses.

Of course, it's my fantasy that lower publishing costs will bring the publishers back to the table with offers of better deals in terms of royalties for writers.

California Dreamin' on such a winter's day . . .

Addendum: Since I wrote this post, Holtzbrinck has changed its corporate name to Macmillan. And Hachette Livre has changed the name of the Time Warner Book Group to Grand Central Publishing.

MR 12/1/07

Looking Forward to Today

I have a ton of things to do, including getting back to my manuscript. But in checking my calendar, I realized that Jodi Picoult's newest novel, Nineteen Minutes, will be released on Tuesday.

I've mentioned Jodi Picoult before on this blog. She is actually the writer who inspired me to sit down and start writing again after a dry spell that lasted nearly a decade. When I finished reading her novel Keeping Faith in 1999, I emailed her. She was incredibly gracious, answering numerous questions during the time she was on tour, emailing me from hotels.

A lot of what she told me about becoming a writer is covered in a FAQ on her website here:

DO IT. Many people have a novel inside them, but most don't bother to get it out. Writing is grunt work - you need to have self-motivation, perseverance, and faith… talent is the smallest part of it (one need only read some of the titles on the NYT Bestseller list to see that… :) If you don't believe in yourself, and you don't have the fortitude to make that dream happen, why should the hotshots in the publishing world take a chance on you?

I don't believe that you need an MFA to be a writer, but I do think you need to take some good workshops. These are often offered through writer's groups or community colleges. You need to learn to write on demand, and to get critiqued without flinching. When someone can rip your work to shreds without it feeling as though your arm has been hacked off, you're ready to send your novel off to an agent. There's no magic way to get one of those - it took me longer to find my wonderful agent than it did to get published! . . .

Keep sending out your work and don't get discouraged when it comes back from an agent - just send it out to a different one. Attend signings/lectures by authors, and in your free time, read read read. All of this will make you a better writer. And – here’s a critical part – when you finally start to write something, do not let yourself stop…even when you are convinced it’s the worst garbage ever. This is the biggest caveat for beginning writers. Instead, force yourself to finish what you began, and THEN go back and edit it. If you keep scrapping your beginnings, however, you’ll never know if you can reach an end.

During our email exchange, Jodi told me she always starts her novels with a question. What if . . .? Her subjects are usually culled from a news story that piques her interest.

Some of the questions she has asked and answered in novels:

What if a seven-year-old Jewish girl began speaking to God? And what if her "Guard" appeared to be the Christian diety and if miracles began to occur in her vicinity? Keeping Faith

What if a thirteen-year-old girl who was conceived in order to produce the bone marrow needed to save her older sister from leukemia walked into a law office and asked for help in stopping her body from being used as a harvesting ground to keep her sister alive? My Sister's Keeper

What if a quartet of teenage girls who are hiding secrets accuse an innocent man of sexual abuse--a man who once served time for a similar offense? Salem Falls

What if the boy still alive after a teenage suicide pact is accused of his girlfriend's murder? How will the teens' two families--best friends and neighbors for twenty years--react? The Pact

I've listed my four favorites among her books above (in order of preference). I have probably read Keeping Faith four times over the past eight years.

As you can tell, I'm drawn to the stories about children and families. However, not all of Jodi's books are on one theme. They are mostly character-driven studies of people in crisis. She is not afraid of the paranormal--both Second Glance and Keeping Faith explore the outer boundaries of reality. She also explores other cultures: Eskimos (The Tenth Circle), the Amish (Plain Truth), or Scottish clans (Mercy) and does extensive research.

My youngest brother and I are the readers and writers of our family. Despite the thousand miles separating us, we talk weekly. We mail each other books and compare notes via long phone calls. He is a sports columnist and spends a lot of time on the road
--covering Wimbleton, the Olympics, football, whatever.

Despite my entreaties, he resisted reading a Picoult novel for years, saying they sounded like "women's fiction." Now he beats me to the bookstore to buy them, and we have long arguments over the plots and characters.

I read my first Picoult novel because a book review in the Dallas Morning News assured readers that she would one day win the Pulitzer Prize. I don't know if she will or not. What I do know is that you'll be doing yourself a favor by buying or borrowing a book of hers.

More On Harlequin

Marie Tuhart, a writer I greatly respect, responded in the comments section to my Harlequin post of Saturday. Because there's been another post since then, I'm reprinting her comment here:

Maya: Since we know each other and you know I'm a fan of Harlequin, I do disagree with some of what you say.

Harlequin has tried over the years to break away from the "formula," and it hasn't worked. Now, with that said, the formula isn't working either.

While I do believe Harlequin needs to let its authors grow a little bit more in their books and not put so many restrictions on them, there are still some diehard readers that love and want the old formula.

What is setting things apart is its Harlequin's North American sales, not their United Kingdom division that is having problems.

Harlequin Presents and Romances are acquired and almost all the editing is done by editors in London. They have a different view of how the books should be and don't seem to be having any problems in sales.

The North American division has had problems for years and years. The demise of Bombshell this year tells me that while the line may have been a move in the right direction, it was marketed incorrectly and didn't attract the readers, had it been marketed differently.

The single lines may be up because of HQN--where they have allowed their authors to break the mold.

While Harlequin admits their bookclub is an issue, what is the actual issue with the bookclub? Is it the way they're distributed? Is it less consumers? I believe Harlequin has changed distribution channels twice in the last three years of the bookclub. That can cause major problems.

Also, I don't think they've taken into account their own website sales. There are many months that I'll hit the website only to find a book I want is already sold out on the website. I'm sure that has cut into the monthly bookclub sales as well.

Harlequin has been around for a long while, and I don't see them going anywhere. But they need to look at their North American series romance lines and see why they're not doing as good as their United Kingdom division.

Marie: Thanks so much for your comments. Your knowledge of Harlequin is definitely far greater than mine. But I don't think we're that far apart in our thinking on the company:

**We agree that the formulas aren't working any more for the bulk of the readership
**We agree that there will always be some readers who prefer the formula romances
**We agree that the reason Bombshell bombed was because of poor marketing (Readers: see my posts of August 15-16, 2006. Marie was the person I turned to when Harlequin made its announcement on Bombshell)

Having said that, the latest Torstar press release both provides some answers to your questions and creates some new questions. I didn't realize until I saw your comments that I didn't provide a link to the Torstar press release. I apologize for the oversight. Here's the link.

The first answer is that website revenue is included with the book club revenue in the figures for the North American Direct-to-Consumer sales. So, even if the Internet siphons off book club customers, the Internet revenues go into the column where the book clubs sales are reflected.

Torstar has been giving the "disrupted distribution system" as their excuse for poor book club sales for a long time. However, for the first time, the recent press release said that, in addition to the shipping disruptions and higher product cost, a long-term decline in the book club customer base contributed to the decline in earnings. That's also where the company said: "Improved sales through the Internet channel partially offset this decline [in book club sales]."

As far as differences in the sales figures for North American retail and the United Kingdom retail, the press release didn't give us enough information to tell. The UK numbers are lumped in the Overseas figure. The press release DID say:

The Overseas markets had mixed results in 2006 with improvements in the United Kingdom and the Nordic Group offset by lower results in Germany. In the United Kingdom improved retail results, primarily from adjustments to prior period returns provisions, more than offset lower direct-to-consumer volumes.

Direct-to-Consumer volumes refers to the UK book clubs and the Mills & Boon website. So, even in the UK, book club sales are off.

Overall operating profit from the three divisions was:

North American Retail: Up $2.7 million
North American Direct-to-Consumer (including book clubs & website): Down $6.5 million
Overseas (Including book clubs, websites and new programs in Brazil & Germany): Up $1.3 million

For the UK and the Nordic Group to have absorbed the losses elsewhere overseas, I agree that the UK operation is probably doing well. Because that figure is lumped in with the Nordic Group (that also did well) and the other foreign groups, we can't tell if that performance was better or worse than the North American Retail operating profit.

Marie, I don't know what the future holds for Harlequin. I see them making positive steps that I applaud. At the same time, their website indicates that worldwide sales in 1988 were in excess of 200 million books. In 2006, they managed to hold sales steady at the 2005 level: 131 million books.

I'll confess that I have an unsubstantiated theory about what's going on. Maybe later this week, I'll do a post on it.

Thanks so much for your comments. I appreciate them, and I appreciate you.

Visit Marie's website here.

Warm regards,

Maya

The Decline of Western Civilization

Okay, I'll admit it. I was born a Yankee. My Irish mother and Italian father were living in Queens, New York when I was born.

But I've lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line since I was twelve.

Of course, most of that time has been spent in Texas, which practically qualifies as its own country.

Even so, the announcement of a new upscale Southern magazine took me by surprise.

The magazine? Garden & Gun. Debuting April 3.

The publisher? Rebecca Darwin. Formerly the publisher of the New Yorker and Mirabella.

According to an article in Friday's Lexington-Herald-Leader, "this new mag is going to read like a guide to the sophisticated metaphor-enabled, literati-prone classic gentleperson of Southern persuasion. Or to those genuine aspirants to same. The magazine is, Darwin says, designed to appeal to men and women, to those who live or wish they lived the sporting life--skeet, trap, upland bird hunting and all manner of fishing."

Gag me with a spoon.

Darwin insists that we should take a look at her new periodical before we pass judgment.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

She also claims the "garden" is about preservation of delta, marsh, bottom land and bluegrass and says the "gun" in the first issue refers to trout fishing.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not offended by the description of the magazine. I love to garden and spent a pleasant hour today in a local nursery deciding how to spend a gift card I'd received for Christmas. I've also dated hunters (what can I say? I like testosterone in my men). My middle brother is a confirmed hunter, and I've even spent a weekend with him at his hunting lease in West Texas (greater love hath no sister).

No, I'm not offended. I'm worried. If we keep encouraging them, smug, pretentious people--and those genuine aspirants to the same--are going to continue breeding and they'll NEVER die out.

Then again, I'd probably subscribe to Trailer and Bar-B-Que.

Harlequin 2006 Year End Figures

On Wednesday, Torstar--the parent of Harlequin--reported on the year ending 12/31/06. You can see the press release here.

I'm going to focus only on the Harlequin results, ignoring Torstar's other holdings. Harlequin's women's fiction operation has three divisions: (1) North American retail, (2) North American Direct-to-Consumer (the famous book clubs), and
(3) Overseas.

Harlequin reported sales of 131 million books in 2006.

All dollars reported are Canadian, and all quotes not from my previous blogs are from the Torstar press release.

"Book Publishing revenues were up $9.4 million in 2006 excluding the impact of foreign exchange. North America Retail was up $9.9 million, North America Direct-To-Consumer was down $5.7 million and Overseas was up $5.2 million."

Excluding the impact of foreign exchange, overall operating profits for 2006 were down $2.5 million. This breaks down to:
(1) North American Retail up $2.7 million; (2) Direct-to-Consumer down $6.5 million and (3) Overseas up $1.3 million.

On October 5th, I reported that Torstar was restructuring Harlequin's workforce. They were expected to eliminate about forty jobs or 4% of their worldwide workforce in the latter half of 2006. Torstar expected the restructuring to save $3,000,000.

"North America Retail increased book sales in 2006 after stabilizing in 2005. Significant efficiency improvements were made to the series business in 2006 as fewer books were printed and distributed and more books were sold. Sales of single title books also increased in 2006."

That last statement is huge, which is why I bolded it. In a post on August 31, 2006, I said: "I still think the biggest obstacle Harlequin has to overcome is its corporate insistence on formulaic guidelines. Cookie cutter romance is getting old. Readers want fresh material, not the same old stuff recycled every month in a different location with different eye colors and shades of hair. Break out, Harlequin! Be bold! Be different! Think about joining a twelve-step program for your addiction to formulas. Please."

It sounds as though someone up there in Canada agreed with me. Fewer series books (read "formula") and more single titles are exactly the directions they need to go.

And that wasn't the only pleasant surprise for me in the recent press release.

Over multiple quarters, Torstar has offered numerous reasons for the continuing decline in its North American Direct-To-Consumer (book club) revenue. This time they blamed it on "fewer shipments of a children's direct-to-home continuity program and from shipping disruptions experienced early in the year associated with the bankruptcy of a key supplier."

Back on August 31, 2006, talking about Harlequin, I said: "Their book club revenues are down. Why should readers pay for unknown category romances selected by Harlequin (plus shipping) that arrive once a month when they can as easily go to the computer and select the specific book they're interested in reading WHEN they want to read it and download it in about two minutes?"

For the first time, Torstar comes close to admitting the truth with one little phrase slipped into all the verbiage about the book clubs: "While the lower revenue in the children's direct-to-home continuity program did not impact operating profit, the shipping disruptions, in conjunction with the long-term decline in the customer base and higher product costs contributed to the year over year decline in earnings. Improved sales through the Internet channel partially offset this decline."

The fact that they're finally admitting that Harlequin is steadily losing book club customers is a HUGE step. As people in the addictions business say, "The first step toward recovery is being willing to admit there's a problem."

The book clubs were the backbone of Harlequin's success for many years. However, those days are gone. The comfortable world they once knew is rapidly disappearing. Harlequin is being forced to scramble to reposition itself in the digital age. And the company has made some excellent progress in updating its website, in providing more e-book choices, and in expanding manga lines.

However, the move away from book clubs and formulas will be the crucial test. Anyone who has watched Harlequin for a few years is accustomed to hearing big announcements about planned changes in imprints . . . and seeing nothing change. Like a giant sea-going vessel, Harlequin seemed to have difficulty turning in a new direction.

But now, for the first time, I have some optimism that they might actually do it. After all, they're admitting they need to do it.

Keep it up, guys. I'm pulling for you.

Birthday Wishes

The sun did not shine.
It was too wet to play.
So we sat in the house
All that cold, cold, wet day.

I sat there with Sally.
We sat there, we two.
And I said, "How I wish
We had something to do."

So starts one of the most beloved of all children's classics. The Cat in the Hat (TCITH) celebrated its fiftieth birthday this week.

According to Wikipedia, TCINH is the ninth best-selling children's book in the United States (up until 2000).

Do something nice for literacy. Random House (RH) has two initiatives to celebrate the Cat's birthday. Send the Cat a birthday card, and RH will donate a child's book to literacy. Additionally, for every RH child's book purchased between now and May 1, RH will donate a child's book to the literacy movement. Go here to find the rules for both programs.

Happy Birthday, Cat!

New RWA Recognized e-Publisher

I think I'm going to do several short "news" posts tonight. There were some interesting stories this week.

First, RWA has named another e-publisher to its approved publisher list: Loose Id (pronounced "lucid") is the latest of the e-publishers to be recognized in this way.

The following comes from the RWA National website:

To be a "RWA Recognized Publisher," a publisher must be a royalty-paying publishing house that (1) is not a subsidy or vanity press, (2) has been releasing books via national distribution for a minimum of one year, and (3) has sold a minimum of 1,500 hardcover or trade paperback copies or 5,000 copies in any other format, including print on demand, of a single novel or novella or collection of novellas in book form, in bona fide arms-length transactions, and continues to sell a minimum of 1,500 hardcover or trade paperback copies or 5,000 copies in any other format of a subsequent romance novel each year.

I *think* this makes four e-publishers, including Ellora's Cave, Red Sage and Triskelion, besides Loose Id, but I may be wrong.

Visit the Loose Id website here.

The Shelving Dilemma

Spent a second day alternately dozing and listening to NPR.

With my new interactive medical file, I can converse with my physicians via email. I was told today that the dust storm we had over the weekend stirred up a lot of sinus issues for people who were outdoors on Saturday or Sunday. I spent both days outside, washing my car and working in the yard. I'm back on my sinus meds now and feeling better.

I spent a little bit of time cruising the Internet yesterday and found an article on "The Acquisition Process" on Backspace here.

While parts of the article were schmaltzy, there were a couple of comments that really interested me. An editor getting ready to bring a couple of proposals to an editorial meeting says:

"So where does this book go in the bookstore? Where is Barnes & Noble going to shelve it? Because if we don’t know, they won’t know. And if we don’t know what category it is, then what kind of cover should it have? Remember the problems they had with CAST OF SHADOWS? If we don’t know something so basic as the book’s category, then how can we even discuss it? Have you thought about that?”

I actually remember Cast of Shadows. It was a debut novel released exactly two years ago on March 1, 2005 by Knopf. The publisher had high hopes for the book, doing a first print run of 75,000 hardbacks and a simultaneous release of the audiobook. Most reviews were glowingly positive with only a few like the Kirkus Reviews grousing that the book had a "Fresh idea hampered by conventional treatment--and way too much of it."

The plot was complicated. A teenage girl is raped and murdered, and the Chicago police are unable to solve the crime. The victim's father is a noted fertility doctor who accidentally comes into possession of the killer's DNA when his daughter's effects are returned to him. The physician decides to clone the killer in the hope of solving the crime. He impregnates an infertile woman with the cloned embryo, planning to see the killer's face on the child someday. His single illegal and unethical act has complications no one could have foreseen.

There were numerous other characters: The infertile couple who hires a detective to track down their son's history. The same detective is working for the doctor, providing him with photos of the growing child. There's the doctor's depressed wife and his attractive colleague. There's also a mentally ill fundamentalist who seeks to close down cloning clinics. There's a serial killer called "The Wicker Man" (the novel was released as Wicker in the UK). And then there's Justin, the cloned boy himself.

You can understand the dilemma of the B&N clerks trying to shelve the book. Is it a medical thriller a la Robin Cook? A sci-fi thriller a la Michael Crichton? A mystery? A literary thriller?

Having said all that, I have to confess some annoyance. Here's an imaginative and innovative book hampered by the fact that it couldn't be neatly pigeonholed by bookstores.

Regular readers of this blog know that I routinely recommend against self-publishing except in a few specific instances. However, if you do a search on this blog for "self publish," you'll find that I've said a cross-genre or new genre author SHOULD consider self-publishing. From the editor's comment in the Backspace article, you can see why I make this suggestion.

I believe that, as self-publishing becomes a more viable alternative for writers, we are going to see a splintering of genres into many, many sub-types. While a traditional bricks-and-mortar bookstore will not have enough shelf space to accommodate these new splinter genres, the Internet has almost infinite shelf space. If you happen to like contemporary gay erotic romance, you'll be able to find the books and authors you want. If, on the other hand, you like dark-edged historical mysteries, you'll also be able to locate the books you want.

It's Chris Anderson's The Long Tail all over again.

Queen Nora Shows the Way

I woke up yesterday morning feeling awful--headache and sore throat--and spent most of the day sleeping. In between naps, I surfaced to let the cats in or out of the house (They jump up on my bedroom windowsill and howl until I accommodate them. Their wanting to come inside every hour has nothing to do with concern for my health. They like having access to kibble on demand).

I also finished the latest J.D. Robb thriller, Innocent in Death (IID).

For those of you who aren't fans, J.D. Robb is the pseudonym of romance writer Nora Roberts. Queen Nora opted for a pen name for the "in Death" books because they were such a departure from her usual romantic fare.

First, the series is primarily police procedurals, not romances. Second, it's set in the future, beginning in 2055. Third, the series is much more edgy than the traditional Nora Roberts novel. Not wanting to confuse readers of her romance brand, Nora opted to publish the "in Death" books under the Robb name. They've become enormously popular and IID is the 24th in the series. I was in the audience in Fort Worth in early November when Nora began her first publicity tour as J.D. Robb. It was a terrific evening.

The protagonist of the series is Lieutenant Eve Dallas, a New York homicide cop. Eve is tough, no compromise, and all business. I like Eve, and I really like the growing cast of characters that surrounds her.

The reason I'm mentioning it tonight is because of our discussion this week on sex in novels. As I've been reading IID, I've been paying particular attention to the romantic scenes, especially since the "in Death" books cannot depend on the question of whether the hero and heroine will ever make love. Early in the series, Eve Dallas meets, falls in love with and marries a man named Roarke. Her new husband plays a prominent role in the books to follow. Of course, mystery is the primary focus of the novels, but romantic tension is always a strong subplot.

In IID, an old lover of Roarke surfaces while Eve is investigating the murder of a teacher in a private school. For the first time in their marriage, Eve struggles to contain her jealousy.

There's a great scene between Eve and her husband that epitomized the point I've been trying to make about sex scenes needing to further the story. This scene takes place a few hours after the ex-lover Magdelana makes her appearance:

Desire. she could feel it in him. In his hands, in the way they moved over her, in what they took, in what they gave. She could taste it on his lips, that heat.

And still it wasn't enough. She knew only that she needed more.

For the first time since they'd come together, she wasn't sure what that more was. She only knew there was a small, cold place inside her that hadn't been there before. She needed it warmed, she needed it filled.

Desperate, she rolled with him, dragging at his sweater, digging her fingers into flesh and muscle. "Touch me," she demanded. "Touch me. touch me."

Her urgency surprised him. Aroused him. so he feasted on her skin, used his hands to take her over. She moaned his name, a sound of both pleasure and plea. And still she quaked, quivered with needs not yet met.

"Eve," He lay a hand on her cheek, wanting to see her eyes, to see into them. "Look at me."

She did what he asked, struggling to let herself fall away. Just fall away. "Inside me. I want you inside me."

She rose up, not in offer but demand, and guided him to her.

Linked, as only they could be, she told herself. Their rhythm, their heat, their scent. She watched him watch her until her vision blurred. Until there was only speed and movement, the building--frantic and wild--toward that final, sharp-edged release.

When she lay curled against him, her skin dewed from passion, there was still that small, cold place inside her where the heat hadn't quite reached. (Permission requested to reprint pending)

This scene--less than a page--is a great example of the scene furthering the plot. In a spare, economical way, the author combines romance with conflict. It is erotic, without being overtly graphic. And it's about the connection between the characters, the relationship.

It's why I keep reading the series.

Is It Eroromance? (Part II)

This post is prompted by comments Laura Vivanco made to my blog of yesterday.

Laura: thank you for the referral to this morning's Romancing the Blog here.

I agree with what Wendy Crutcher is saying. The success of erotic romance has raised the overall heat level of romance in general. Unfortunately, many writers (and editors) think they can capitalize on the trend by dropping a couple of sex scenes into a novel.

Wendy's post described one of the two biggest mistakes writers can make. She talked about reading a sex scene that was "very jarring. It didn’t fit the tone, or . . . the characters’ personalities."

The first mistake a writer can make is by trying to throw a random sexual encounter into an existing manuscript. Trying to spice up a novel, the writer picks what looks like a good spot and drops a generic, cookie-cutter sex scene in. The scene doesn't fit and, like Wendy, the reader is pulled out of the story by the incongruity of it.

Laura touched on the second mistake, which is found at the opposite end of the spectrum. In this error, you have a writer who is so uncomfortable writing sex scenes that s/he builds an almost unbearable level of sexual tension, but never pays off, leaving the readers feeling cheated and angry.

When you create a lot of sexual tension, you need to pay off in a big way. Think of Maddie and David in the late '80s television show Moonlighting.

For those of you who weren't fans, Moonlighting was the comedy drama that made Bruce Willis a star. He played David Addison, a detective, who finds his agency owned by a supermodel who has been cheated out of her fortune by a crooked business manager. The model, Maddie Hayes, was played by Cybill Shepherd.

The sexual tension between Maddie and David was almost unbearable. Week after week, viewers wondered if they would ever "do it." Finally, in the finale of the third season, they did consummate their passion--in a spectacular manner that involved sweeping things off a table and pursuing each other across the floor. It was a payoff in a big way.

But, once the sexual tension was gone, the show fell apart. Although the series was renewed for two more seasons, the show had lost its raison d'etre. The program ended not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I mention Moonlighting because it's a perfect example of what I was talking about last night. Without the sexual tension to sustain the show, the series needed to find a new way to establish a different kind of tension. Unfortunately, the writers never managed to develop that new tension.

Mechanical sex scenes are about as interesting as reading an instruction manual: "Insert Part A into Part B and pound into place." Yuck. It drives me crazy to see writers wasting great opportunities to advance the plot and plumb their characters' depths.

When are you more relaxed or inclined to share intimate secrets than after making love? A post-coital sex scene is a terrific opportunity for a hero and heroine to learn important facts about each other or about the story.

Writers are trained to remove any scene that does not further the plot. This stricture should apply to sex scenes, too. They should NOT be periods of time out. Don't end the chapter with the sex scene; embellish it. Keep your reader reading instead of skipping over endless mechanical descriptions.

And, before I leave this subject, take a look at Laura's post today over on Teach Me Tonight here. She has a great post on the differences among book cover art in the U.S., U.K. and Australia.

Is It Eroromance, Erotica Or Porn?

WARNING: ADULT CONTENT; NOT INTENDED FOR THOSE UNDER 18 OR THOSE EASILY OFFENDED

On Sunday, Laura asked: Is the intention to titillate, unmitigated by anything else, what distinguishes porn from erotic romance? Or is erotic romance never intended to titillate at all?

I'd like to start a dialogue on that question this evening. I may have to settle for just beginning the conversation because I have a birthday cake to bake tonight. But, if there's interest, we can continue tomorrow.

When Passionate Ink (PI), the erotic romance chapter of RWA started in May of 2005, we had a lot of discussion about what erotic romance is. It ended with the following definitions, which you can find on our website here:

Porn: stories written for the express purpose of causing sexual titillation. Plot, character development, and romance are NOT primary to these stories. They are designed to sexually arouse the reader and nothing else.

Erotica: stories written about the sexual journey of the characters and how this impacts them as individuals. Emotion and character growth are important facets of a true erotic story. However, erotica is NOT designed to show the development of a romantic relationship, although it’s not prohibited if the author chooses to explore romance. Happily Ever Afters (HEA) are NOT an intrinsic part of erotica, though they can be included.

Erotic Romance: stories written about the development of a romantic relationship through sexual interaction. The sex is an inherent part of the story, character growth, and relationship development, and couldn’t be removed without damaging the storyline. Happily Ever After is a REQUIREMENT to be an erotic romance.

Laura's comment was prompted by my statement that porn is a male genre while erotic romance is a woman's genre. She correctly pointed out that women can write porn while men do write erotic romance.

Having said that, I still think that my statement probably holds true for most men and women. Men use porn as an aid to masturbation. The stories tend to be short (fifteen minutes, anyone?), not focused on plot or character development. The sexual fantasy is the main thrust (no pun intended) of the story. Porn films and porn magazines with photos are perennial favorites since visual stimulation is helpful in achieving climax.

At the other end of the continuum is erotic romance, where the relationship is key. When the members of PI tried to define erotic romance, there was general agreement that the relationship did not have to be between a man or a woman. It could be between two men or even between two men and a woman so long as the result was a HEA.

Erotica occupies the gray area between porn and eroromance. Erotica DOES share plot and character development with erotic romance, but also shares porn's focus on sexual fantasy. The erotica protagonist embarks on a sexual journey, which may or may not end in a committed relationship.

Many of the PI members who began by writing erotic romance are drifting across the line into erotica these days.

Angela Knight, one of the most popular erotic romance authors and a founder of PI (see her website here), said something over a year ago that I've never forgotten. It has been very helpful to me in understanding and writing erotic romance.

Angela pointed out that most romance is driven by the question of whether the hero and heroine will ever sleep together. The sexual tension is frequently high.

However, in erotic romance, the question of whether the hero and heroine will ever sleep together is answered early on in the story. Eroromance is, therefore, forced to develop a different question in order to generate tension: Will the hero and heroine live happily ever after?

If you think about this, it's a paradox of sorts. Romance is driven by sexual tension. Erotic romance can't depend totally on sexual tension and is thus more driven by romantic tension.

I've interpreted this to mean that plotting is particularly important in an erotic romance since the writer cannot rely on sexual tension to carry the novel.

Let me stop here and see if you have any thoughts on the subject. I'm wide open to any input.

Should Violence Be Banned in Media?

As a part of my posts this week in which I decried the prevalence of violence--particularly violence against women--I googled "violence." I found an article from Thursday's Christian Science Monitor titled "As Screen Violence Rises, So Do New Tactics To Curb It."

Those who create and sell violent media--and the elected officials, regular citizens, or parents who have a concern that this media is creating a more violent society or contributing to the degradation of our culture--need to come together," says Indianapolis's mayor, Bart Peterson. As the recently elected president of the National League of Cities, Mayor Peterson has adopted the issue of media violence as the theme of his upcoming year in office.

The article goes on to describe increasing efforts around the country to curb violence in media: the FCC issued a draft report indicating that perhaps we need to regulate violence over the airwaves, the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is considering strengthening the ratings system--now voluntary--for films, and the Indiana Senate will consider a bill to criminalize selling of adult video games to minors.

Mayor Bart Peterson believes regulation is not the answer. He suggests that education is the key to stopping increasingly violent content.

Ken Ferree, former head of the FCC's media bureau agrees. "The courts have been ferociously protective of the First Amendment when it comes to new platforms. Every time the FCC tries to go there with new regulations, the courts slap them down. This trend reflects a deeply held societal bias that everyone should be free."

It would be harder to find a stronger advocate of the First Amendment than me. My personal belief is that we must fight violence in the media with our wallets. If we do not support films, books and programs glorifying violence, the media industry will set up and take notice.

To read the entire article, go here.

Who'll Win Tonight?

For years, my friends and I have made bets on the Academy Awards, each trying to score the most number of correct prizes.

As I did this time last year, I'm posting my choices for the major awards. So as not to bore you, I'm not including the entire ballot, which is what we base our bets on. Also keep in mind that I vote for whom I want to win, not necessarily the best performance (as J keeps reminding me year after year as he collects his earnings):

Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role: Peter O'Toole (Venus)
Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role: Mark Walhberg (The Departed)
Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role: Helen Mirren (The Queen)
Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role: Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine)
Best Animated Feature Film: Monster House
Achievement in Art Direction: Pan's Labyrinth
Achievement in Cinematography: Pan's Labyrinth
Achievement in Costume Design: Curse of the Golden Flower
Achievement in Directing: Martin Scorsese (The Departed)
Best Documentary Feature: An Inconvenient Truth
Best Motion Picture: The Departed

You can go here to print your own ballot.

Happy viewing and good luck with your picks!

Note to readers: When I re-read my post from last night this morning (see below), I wasn't happy with it. I don't think I did a very good job of explaining myself. I've re-written it this morning to try to express myself more clearly.

The Dilemma of a New Novelist

This has been an odd week for me professionally. I received my copyedits and the next installment of my advance on Bad Girl. I wrote my first book dedication, thanking those who'd helped me on my journey to becoming published. AND, I'm finding it's time to come clean with friends, co-workers and acquaintances.

While I'm not ashamed to be an erotic romance writer, it does pose some social challenges. Texas is a bastion of fundamentalist religious belief and conservative values. I have many friends who live far more traditional lives than I do. So now I'm forced to balance fairness and friendship. Several people have mentioned giving me a book party or launch. I've thanked them and gently dissuaded them from that plan. I would hate for anyone I know to be shocked or embarrassed by my book.

Invariably, when I tell people my book is an erotic romance, they get a stunned look and ask, "But, why?" And I find myself trying to explain. It comes down to some of my most fundamental beliefs about life, love and fairness.

Everyone knows men and women are different. But, saying it doesn't necessarily mean internalizing it. For centuries, the world has been run according to men's rules. In the last sixty years, men have made an effort to make room for women at the table, but change has been slow. Even our methods of offering health care are based on men's physiology. It is just NOW that physicians are learning that they must treat women's health issues differently from those of men.

I embrace the differences between men and women. I cherish the differences between men and women. However, different does not mean one gender is better than the other. It simply means different. Women look at the world differently, and we often respond differently.

As an example, whenever I get really, really angry, I cry. It doesn't mean I'm pulling the "gender card"; it is simply the way I respond to being angry. Women get it; men never do. When I was younger, I was embarrassed by the tears and found that embarrassment interfered with presenting my side of an argument. Most men reacted in one of several ways: they'd get condescending, they'd try to comfort me or they regarded the tears as a sign that I believed I was losing the argument.

It took years for me to learn to accept that quirk of my femaleness, disregard the tears and stop being mortified by them. Nowadays, I say at the beginning of a fight: "I may cry. Ignore the tears. I certainly will." The tears don't impede my ability to think or to argue. They are simply part of that difference.

I grew up in a household dominated by males. It was either surrender or learn to hold my own. I learned to hold my own. These days, I'm drawn to males who are not annoyed by our differences and who truly enjoy a woman's company. That's also a good description of how I feel about men: I LIKE their company, and I find them endlessly entertaining.

When I was thirteen, I loved romance novels. By the time I was twenty, I despised them. Although I didn't put it into words back then, I had an instinctive dislike for the power imbalance. Women were not depicted as equals; they were clearly subservient to the males of the books: forced to marry, forced to seek help, forced to fight their own sexual urges. I walked away from the romance genre and didn't look back.

Erotic romance does not yield to the world of men's rules; it turns that world on its ear. Today's erotic romances are very different from those passive romances of my youth. If there's a power imbalance, the story--not gender--dictates whether the male or the female will be the one taking the lead.

Additionally, most genre fiction has conventions, rules by which you must operate. In my opinion, erotic romance is the most wide-open of all genres. As long as it's erotic, you can write a mystery, paranormal, contemporary, sci-fi, thriller, whatever. Erotic romance ignores conventions, which--for me--makes writing one fun.

Frank language doesn't offend me; in fact, I prefer it. If you can't comfortably talk about the parts of your body, how can you expect to tell your lover what pleases you, or ask him what he would like for you to do? For two people to waltz around during their moments of greatest intimacy makes no sense to me.

When it comes right down to it, I'm more offended by violence against women in books than I am by sexually explicit scenes. Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho is far more disturbing to me than the erotic romance novels I read. I also find it interesting that Ellis' book received such huge media attention and was even made into a movie. Dismembering and displaying women's body parts is apparently more acceptable than using an Anglo-Saxon word to name the male organ.

Perhaps the reason erotic romance creates such angst is that, in addition to ignoring literary conventions, it ignores social conventions. Eroromance advocates a world order in which women are free to express themselves in a manner antithetical to a paternalistically ordered universe. Women can be leaders, warriors, priests, or whatever they choose to be. That's scary to a lot of people--both male and female. Scary and subversive.

Having said all that, I still think it would be wrong for me not to at least warn potential readers that my upcoming book is explicitly sexual--unashamedly so. However, on the flip side, I believe it's also intriguing, thrilling and--with the help of my editors--well-written.