Dave Freer's Tree

I see I am not the only one wary about the Macmillan 'victory'.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/

On yet another blog I write on (instead of writing novels, which is what I have done most of today, at least) http://madgeniusclub.blogspot.com/ Matapam made a statement I consider to be near fundamental about the entire writing business:

"There are two kinds of people who are indispensible to the fiction industry.

Writers and readers."

She's dead right. And here to add my 2 cents worth (as publishers and retailers often play this game in their wars with each other) As an author anyone - publisher, distributor, retailer, who stands in the way of the good relationship between the reader and the writer is the enemy of both readers and writers. Readers are not unwilling in my (savethedragons.nu) experience to support writers whose work they enjoy. Yep, there are always parasites, and those who steal because they can. But -- shouting the odds about my own work here -- they're not likely to enjoy my heroes or their values much. Be as likely as a Fundamentalist stealing Dawkins to read for pleasure.

What worries me about this lot is Macmillan turned authordom loose on Amazon. And Amazon was discounting books (cheaper books for readers) - Yes, Amazon's behaviour was stupid and beyond the pale, and punished authors for the deeds of their publisher. But it remains a fight about setting book prices. I heard a good few of my peers saying 'We deserve to earn a living from our work'. Well, maybe. If you are good and popular enough with readers, definitely. But it's not readers who are claiming over 90% of that paperback price. It's not readers who are claiming (outside of Baen) between 85%-90% of a hardcover (or at least one of those fancy big paperbacks) price for an e-book which has no paper, no distro and no returns costs).

Bottom line is writers do need to earn a living. Readers need easily affordable books. The difference needs to come out of the area between these two essential partners - not from writers or readers. We need each other.

A great deal has been said about the battle between Amazon and Macmillan and the role of Apple's new reader and agency model (which BTW generally leaves authors poorer - and is superficially not good for publishers either.) What hasn't really been said is WHY it's such a big fight. The nearest some people have come is 'it's about control' and 'e-books are growing'. Both of these are true. Both in fact rest on the real reason why this is such a bitter fight which has so much potential effect on books, writers and the entire industry is the fixed cost/variable cost equation, and the effect e-books have on this. Traditional publishing - the interface between the writer and reader - or at least the retailer is a little unusual compared to most producer to user middlemen, in that a substantial part of the cost was not affected by volume - the fixed costs - if a book is to sell 5000 copies or 500 000 copies - it makes no difference to these costs. The editor and proof-reader still get paid the same. They still need an office, and it still takes much the same time to do the job, and the same equipment. On the other hand for paper-books, the costs per book (variable costs) are quite substantial (paper, shipping, returns, ink, warehousing, and royalty payments), and while there are bulk savings these costs get added up with every book printed. In one very elderly eg. I have for 5000 books - the fixed and variable costs are much the same (excluding the royalty payment to the author). Now let's put some totally hypothetical figures to all of this to see why it is all a big deal. Twoman publishers fixed costs are $15000 per book. The print run is 5000 books and for the purposes of this we assume zero returns (returns just makes everything more expensive) - the fixed cost is $3 per book, the varible is $3 per book, the retailer wants 40% off the cover price and for ease of calculation the author gets 10% royalty (can be as little as 6% and as much as 15% for over certain volume). Basically Twoman Publishers cannot really sell for less than about $12 and make a profit. Hence publishers often say that newbies cost them money (which is true, but fails to consider capacity - without newbies bestsellers could lose money).

Now let's assume that Twoman publishes a book which sells 500 000 copies. It still costs 15000 in fixed costs. Which means that fixed cost per book is now 3 cents. The variable costs have also dropped with volume - and now come in at $2.50 a book. Twoman's costs before royalties are now down to $2.53 as opposed to $6.00. The book comes out in paperback at $7.00 (or first in hardback and then in paperback making more) Costs are $3.23. Twoman is getting $4.20, and making 97 cents on the book, or $485 000 for the same amount of work as they lost money on the 5000 copy book. You understand now why bestsellers are worth investing money for publicity and distribution and yes, vast advances, and why newbies and midlisters aren't. It's not that their books are very much -1000% worse. That's just not where the money is.

Now lets get to really scary part, and what all midlisters should be quaking in their boots about. Let's do the same for an e-book. Twoman do an e-book which sells 5000 copies. It still has fixed costs of $15000 - same process, same costs, same staff. The fixed costs are $3 per book. They offer a royalty of 20% (it varies, but with creative phrasology some companies have this as low as 10%) The e-tailer wants 40%. Like that sensible company, Baen, Twoman sell their e-books at paperback prices - call it $7 so we can compare with the figures above. Their costs are per book $4.40 -- BECAUSE VARIABLE COSTS ARE SO SMALL AS TO BE NEGLIGIBLE. They're only losing 20 cents - good compared to 5000 in paperback but still a loss.

Then they do an e-book which sells 500 000 copies. Fixed Costs per book are 3 cents. The author gets $1.40 in royalties. The publisher gets $4.20. And makes 1.385 million in profit for the same amount of work as they lost money on the 5000 seller. So the newbies and midlisters might not be as expensive in e format - but bestsellers are nearly 3 times as profitable as in paper.
So e-books are NOT going to free up the midlist and offer a myriad new opportunities to the newbies. They're going to INCREASE the spend on bestsellers (which has a bad effect on the business and reading - but that's where the money is)

Which loops back to fight between Amazon and Publishers. It IS about control - but it's not about control of authors. Just the cash cows with low fixed cost per book ratios. Amazon was - under draconian terms - offering to let them break free of publishers - cover their own fixed costs and smile all the way to the bank (yes, Amazon will let anyone do it. But for most of the unknown, it's a losing proposition, and costs Amazon nothing). And if that happens publishers are dead. So: it's not about prices, or (helpless laughter) looking after creative artists, or cheaper books for readers -all claims that have been made about this, but about who 'owns' the bestsellers who have low fixed costs and large audiences.

Life is beginning to show some distant, hesitant signs that it may become normal one day in the not too distant future. We're in our house-for-the-year even if the furniture hasn't arrived (it's in Launceston - and we have ferry epics, and as Ian pointed out we're mere mortals in ferry realms. The saga is here http://flindersfreer.blogspot.com/

Anyway, Sorceress of Karres is out, and got to no 9 in sf/fantasy lists on the Wall Street Journal. Writing continues with some difficulty on the little eee. Amazon's kindle is setting some new benchmarks with the 70% royalty offer to authors (nad publishers) and times remain interesting.

On the good news front, Save the dragons ( http://savethedragons.nu/ )has reached it's $10K minimum target - 2/5 of the cost of moving the animals - and a testament to the honesty and goodness of enough of the human race, as well as to Walt and Francis.

My older son goes back to uni on monday, and then James flies out on friday. Hopefully our stuff will have arrived by then, so J can help me re-assemble my computer (hard drive and fans removed for transit -I can do it but it would be nice to have a geek on tap)

It''s been a busy, trying, interesting few weeks. Writing has been exceptionally difficult - i do need a 'run' - still we have structured and fleshed a lot so it is coming on.

Save the Dragons site has had a few hiccups - my hosting provider had a major disk drive fail we recovered from that but there still some to be issues.

I've learned to make cheese and kill chickens... http://flindersfreer.blogspot.com/

South Africa continues down its interesting path. I really long to be out - but I know I will still care.

Ok it's been a hectic couple of weeks since I posted (as anyone following http://flindersfreer.blogspot.com/ knows. But I am managing to write again. The beasties are apparently settled in their kennels ( http://flindersfreer.blogspot.com/2009/12/our-animals.html) and we're wading through the finale to leaving.

SA continues down its path- I see the young communist league are now calling for ex-Pes Thabo Mbeki to be prosecuted for his AIDS denialism (which - as he refused to acknowledge that HIV caused AIDS and accused anyone who said this was the case of being racists, and accusing black people of indiscriminate sexual promiscuity and belittling their culture, as well as preventing the ARV programme and the sponsored neonatal treatment means 300 000 preventable deaths can be laid at his door just from the latter. The ARV debacle is now accepted. The real damage which will far more - that promiscious, unprotected sex is something that has to be curbed hasn't yet. Um. A polygamous culture that believes that proof of fertility is good and out of wedlock kids with scant male responsibility acceptable IS a hotbed for spreading sexual disease, as is the migrant labour sy stem that still continues. Yet our new president has mutiple wives and had unprotected sex with a HIV positive 'girlfriend' and then had a shower to protect himself... But the local politicos and papers would rather take aim at the WHO than deal with our problem here. I am glad we are leaving, sad for SA

(cross posted from the Bar for anyone who doesn't go there and doesnt follow Flinders family Freer)

Writing is at what I hope will be a very temporary standstill. The movers
arrive on Monday to pack our goods and chattels and of course the family
rock ( http://flindersfreer.blogspot.com/2009/11/rock-part-1.html )

Also on monday the people from Pets-en-transit are due to collect Roly (the
Old English Sheepdog, with the infamous black nose) Pugsley and Wednesday
(the Lab x dubious travelling salesman - Puggles is big, blond, thick,
good-natured, and Wensie is the evil over-lady) and 3 of the cats en route to Quarantine and then Australia. James has decided he wants his cat, Legolas (big tabby, possible problem with AQIS as he looks suspiciously like an African Wildcat) to stay here with the friends he will spend his short holidays with. They're good people, it's a similar environment and he will be spoiled, but it is still sad for us. The other three, Batman, his sister Robin (brave, brave Sir Robin) and La Duchesse also go to quarantine, to fly out later. I am forever grateful to Walt who helped me to make the decision to do this, and Francis who put together the site and has run things at http://www.savethedragons.nu/ - which has made the difference between an impossible ask and a mere steep hill. Thank you so much to everyone who has helped and supported us (when we get to the end of Save the Dragons I'll send off thank you letters and a status report on the beasties and selling the book). We're still a bit short, but I now believe we'll make it, somehow. We haven't come this far to give up, and some of the money is only due later...(better sell more books ;-)). I am of course worried about them in quarantine, but they are going to be in together in SA (the long part) and then it's just the last bit... We'll miss them, but the alternative was putting them down, as they are difficult to re-home. Anyway... net access will be erratic , but we'll try and keep posting on the family blog.

http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

I have often wondered just who the copyright protectors were trying to protect. After all the creators of the original material do recieve the smallest share. If the other sectors were really looking after our interests, not theirs, wouldn't the easy answer be just to give a bigger share to the creators?

We raise a glass to the living and our dead.

We've been clearing the backlog of stuff for the move. masses of old photographs. Men and women in uniform... 4 wars worth. I daresay there'll be some plonker out there who'll say they were imperial wars... But the world you might have had without their sacrifice was not a very pleasant one. And the little districts in little far off countries gave more - by ratio - than the great powers did.

I stood at little memorial in the back of beyond in New Zealand. Beautifully kept... maybe 20 names in two wars. The same surnames repeated... In a sparsely populated area like that it must have seemed all their dreams gone to dust and ashes. And yet in the second World War those families sent more sons...

Here too. (And while it was English speakers who responded heavily, there were many Afrikaans volunteers too - my mother. There were Zulu volunteers who died heroically on the Mendi.) Yet, today the TV announcer in SA do not wear poppies (we do) and there are no headlines of rememberance services. The memorials grow weeds in many places.

Yet we will remember them, and the sun shall never set on them.

Salute.

http://www.news24.com/Content/Africa/News/965/0eacbed15c5e4324803a578d676cf315/06-11-2009-10-06/Somali_rebels_issue_aid_rules

These people need help. I prescribe a lead injection between the eyes. (serverely affronted by this. People are starving, sick and all these arse-wipes can do is... set conditions to them being helped. They are a source of enduring shame to themselves, their so-called 'religion' and the human race.)

Beggars cannot be choosers.

www.NewNewForum.com

if you have any bright ideas you want to talk about. It's run Dr Andrew Burt the founder of Critters.org as a reaction to his experience with old-boys club sites.

http://savethedragons.nu has a write up there.

Because crabs don't often escape from traps: "Self-made ghettoes are hard to get out of."

Sir Terry Pratchett (interveiw -http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427326.000-terry-pratchett-fighting-to-keep-the-fantasy-alive.html )

The man is a genius. I'd have made him a bleedin' Emperor, not a mere Knight. That so describes so much of SA's situation. This ought to be one the richest countries on earth with the lowest GINI co--efficient, and the most wonderful vibrant human rights culture. It had every ounce of the potential. But the crabs climbed into the bucket after the smelly bait-remains and now they can't get out and are ripping each other apart.

Tired and stressed out, Proofs for Sorceress of Karress are in, waiting on new quotes for quarantine and transport of the dogs and cats. If you haven't got around to supporting http://www.savethedragons.nu/ and can and want to... now would be a good time. B has a sore eye from getting a stick in it. We're a bit in the wars... http://flindersfreer.blogspot.com/ for the expanded version.

Worrying about the kids too of course - it's exams coming and they've had a bit of torrid time, with their Gran (who seemed I think as eternal as rock and unchanging) and with parents and their old way of life suddenly uprooted. Pads has a great foundation so I hope he's OK. James... I'm still scared that he thinks he's too clever to have to work (and so far his marks do not indicate the truth of this). He hasn't got a lot of leeway in a couple of subjects - and he really is bright enough to pull firsts, not have the old man worrying about him passing. I guess I just loved the stimulus of uni too much not to work very hard, and I was married and had worked at deadly boring stuff. So the distractions were less, and the alternatives known and stark.

Ah well. I follow the ancient worrier way.

A piece I read this morning brought up the whole sexual stereotyping thing in my mind again. Back when my older boy was in I think grade 4 or 5 they had a class on gender stereotypes. Teacher held forth about how bad it was. My kid grows increasingly puzzled. Asks teacher for clarification. "Well your mommy always has to cook supper..."
giggle. "My mom doesn't cook, dad does that." (true. We did start by alternating, but I like to cook and detest washing up. B would rather wash a mountain than have to boil an egg)
"Well, your dad always drives..."
"Not if mom is in the car. Never!" (true, B gets car-sick unless she drives. I've driven her somewhere I think thrice in her life. To have babies. And once when she was really sick.)
"Well your mom gardens..." helpless laughter.
"So who is the boss in your house?"
"I don't know, Ma'am." (true again with kids. Before they were born even, we decided on a common front, in front of them. We argued about things when they were weren't there to listen.)

We've never really fitted the gender standard mold, sharing things, doing what we liked or what needed to be done. Chip in if the other is working. I liked the Elizabethan concept that a gentleman was a man of many parts (my musical ability lets me down, alas. But I'll take on anything else). I cleaned house and changed kids when B was working and I was home writing. It needed doing and I could do it, and it was my 'share'. I iron better than B (thanks to the army). She sews better than I do. I found knitting mindlessly boring even if it is a traditionally male preserve (it was, yes) On the other hand I like making preserves (and not only traditional male ones like cider). Yes, I do the woodwork. But B has built walls and painted the house. The idea of there being a single 'boss'in our house is ludicrous. It depends on what's being decided on and when. We didn't 'decide' it would be like this. It's just the way we've sort of evolved. I suppose if one of us was strong and the other weak it might have been different - but then I'd never have married someone who wasn't brighter and as strong-willed as I was. I realise it's all a little atypical, but I do see a lot of similar patterns among my friends, to varying degrees. Are they henpecked, not real men? Metrosexual? Gay? Actually, I'd say it was the opposite. My friends tend to be people I climb with, dive with. They're the sort of people who don't need reassurance that they really are male (or female) as some kind of security blanket. Who don't give a toss if some other plonker thinks that doing the dishes is a bit feminine. They tend to be the far end of knowing they're male and as tough as old bootleather in the extremis positions they put themselves in. They don't need gender stereotypes to identify their sex. What's wrong with unzipping your fly and having a look if you're in doubt? Or if you care.

I was interested to see a UK law commission has produced a position paper on what they see as potential law-changes with regard to inheritance and people who die intestate. They're proposing that marriage no longer be pre-requisite for someone to inherit the estate. If you've been together for two years the surviving partner gets half the estate, and at 5 becomes the heir.

Blink.

Is this same bunch who said lifetime spinster sisters who live together cannot enjoy family status (ie when one dies the other must sell their home to pay inheritance tax)

Now the logical answer - to me - is don't be a plonker and die intestate. And formalise your relationship and its responsiblities and obligations if it going on a long time (no actually I don't care if you're gay or polyandrous - that is you and your partner/s choice, and you should be able to formalise it, if death may say leave one party without a home or with kids to look after. If they'd said make that easy,and beneficial, that would have my support.)

But let's take a hypothetical case. Joe divorces Edna - to whom he pays maintenance. Joe inherited a two room apartment from his granny, and Fred - a guy he worked with - boards there. It's a casual arrangement (like many of these) and Fred gives Joe 500 bucks in cash every month. They live as bachelor men (just as spinster sisters might). Five years and one day later, Joe steps off the pavement and is his hit by a Mack truck - dead on impact. Edna's maintenance check dies with him. But... she still has the apartment to sell. Except Fred says, sorry, we've been together 5 years. Edna has hissy fit. But short of having had a spycam in their bedrooms bedroom she has not a leg to stand on. Anyway, why does a partner actually have to have had a physical relationship? There are probably a good few married couples out there who haven't had sex for years. Of course she might argue they hadn't been togther 5 years but four years and 364 days... (as further example of 'ridiculous')

I think I see what they were trying to achieve, but maybe a little less nanny and a bit more advantage would work better...

It looks like I mave placed another short I wrote in the dark ages THE HUMAN CONQUEST OF A GALACTIC EMPIRE :IT'S A DIRTY JOB, BUT SOMEONE'S GOTTA DO IT
PART 1 : NEITHER SLEET, NOR SNOW, NOR ALIEN MONSTERS...

I'm mildly amused by this, as it is the least PC story I ever wrote (and gee I am so famous for those). The basic premise is that our idea of sexual harassment may be some other species idea of basic etiquette.

I must admit not having written for the last few days. But tomorrow, come hell or high water I must get back to the grindstone. It's been a bit emotionally wrenching, but good to see friends and family rally round. We remain a tribal crew - and it is quite wonderful that my 'village'is spread across the world.

And my lads... It was good to have them home. We've raised to exceptionally fine lads, is all I can say, and that in part was their grandmother. We continue.

My thanks to all of those of you who sent messages of support. For those of you who still have parents... a small request from me. Give them a call.

Johanna Alida Freer, 1916-2009.
May the circle be unbroken, by and by, Lord, by and by.

Well, I am coping somehow... writing through mom's illness, the hard decisions and farewells and uncertainties. I think it best to keep busy... I hope it doesn't come through into the book.

Starting afresh will be better than this, I hope.

Meanwhile: I got talked into twitter. I am wondering just how many people one reaches with these various net initiatives. They do take a lot of time, and I'm never sure if the posts interest anyone. But in my usual fashion, I just keep right on trying.

My mother is much the same. They're looking into step-down care of some sort.

I am on as davefreersf

Dave

We're in a difficult spell, in which there seems no movement at all (it reminds me of the publishing industry at present - many companies seem to be comatose on their response to proposals - because of their uncertainty I assume.) Mum is still only giving minimal responses. Her swallowing seems slightly improved, and her coughing. I know this seems callous but I desperately wish we had progress in some direction, or that we knew how bad the damage was, and if there was any real prospect of recovering, and how much. My mother was the original energiser bunny and was still hyperactive and very independent to very last. Her vision deteriorating frustrated her enormously (didn't stop her, but did limit her) and I hate to imagine what loss of mobility and communication could do.