SELF-PUBLISHED AUTHORS IGNORED

My collection of rejection from The New York Times is enriched by one more letter about self-publishing. This time, it was my response to a polemic between Maureen Sullivan’s (ALA) and Scott Turow (Author’s Guild) over the question of diminishing royalties to authors:


I agree with Maureen Sullivan (Letters, April 11) that librarians should love authors. As President of ALA, she knows that they are our natural allies.

But I also agree with Scott Turow oposition (Op-Ed April 10) to the trend to make everyone but the writers themselves profit from their labor. As President of the Authors Guild, he stands against further erosion of authors’ right to some fruit of their labor.

Missing from this debate is the question of the livelihood of independent authors, whose writings aren’t offered by mainstream publishers. Many don’t even earn the Authors Guild’s minimum requirement of a $500 annual income from their books. A great number of worthy titles are hidden from library patrons simply because they are self-published. Their authors don’t have the same access to the reading public, which should be the ultimate arbiter of their success of failure.

By the standards of today’s acquisition policies, Huckleberry Finn, Ulysses, and Zane Grey, alongside with works of Virginia Woolf, Marcel Proust and a long list of today’s classics would still bef ound only in the modern version of Samizdat  -- self-published but not on library shelves.

Our non-profit association of indie writers Is trying to level the playing field and gain acceptance by libraries of worthy titles by self-published authors. We offer indie books objective scrutiny by volunteer professionals, without any bias of personal taste or monetary gain.

We advocate both protection of intellectual propertiy rights and equitable royalties for all authors, self- or otherwise published.  All would benefit if the readers had access to all books to decide on their value and the resulting income of authors..

A BEST SELLING AUTHOR'S EMPATHY FOR INDEPENDENTS

There is an interesting op-ed opinion, in The New York Times of April 8, 2013, by best-selling author Scott Turow, who is also president of The Authors Guild.

It is entitled "The Slow Death of the American Author."

Turow outlines the inventive ways publishers, and even libraries, are circumventing intellectual property rights, stealing in effect from authors a larger and larger portions of the proceeds on their works. Authors' royalties are being reduced and sometimes disappear completely under various schemes.

"Authors," says Turow, "practice one of the few professions directly protected in the Constitution, which instructs Congress 'to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries'. The idea is that a diverse literary culture, created by authors whose livelihoods, and thus independence, can't be threatened, is essential to democracy."

Even  the Supreme Court (or should i, considering its recent history of giving voting rights to money, not be surprised?) is getting into the act. Turow specifically refers to the Court's "decision last month to allow importation and resale of foreign editions of American works..." by which ruling "authors won't get royalties."

Warns Turow:

"The culture is now at risk. The value of copyrights is being quickly depreciated, a crisis that hits hardest not best-selling authors like me, who have benefited from most of recent changes in bookselling, but new and so-called midlist writers." I say this means self-published authors who aren't given a level playing field in the market of ideas.

My take is that we are witnessing and living in the period of intellectual usury. Usury, remind you, is a sin in the Bible. But we live in times where people leave the Good Book on the threshold of their houses of worship, and people of Law dispense mercantile justice.

As I wrote in a recent letter on behalf of The indiePENdents: “In our democracy, unfortunately just as in the defunct Soviet Union, the public does not have unimpeded access to a majority of printed books. The reasons are different: theirs were political, ours are economic, both detrimental to the quality of the society and the freedom of its culture.”

--
Jasha M. Levi, author
jashalevi@yahoo.com
Founder and President
www.indiePENdents.org

A guest blog by a gun owner friend, William Schiff

Shoot the Second Amendment!

Posted on January 31, 2013 | Leave a comment

It’s past about time that someone actually seriously addresses those (like Wayne LaPierre) who repeatedly claim that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution supports the rejection of any constraints on gun possession and use.

1. Those who quote (or misinterpret) our Constitution (like the SCOTUS – e.g., in”Citizens United”) seem to forget, that unlike the Bible, which was, of course, penned by God on her laptop, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments were written by mere people, who are sometimes wrong, wrong, wrong. Most current people (excluding the Far Far Right) think the F#%*Fathers screwed up the parts dealing with slavery, for one example. Yet, the 2nd Amendment continues to be held up to the holy light, like the biblical prescriptions for executing adulterers, and other gems of ecumenical wisdom. But even if we accept this absurd practice of enforcing, by current law, some of the outdated concepts of Holy Scriptures, there remain several objections to slavish support of the 2nd Amendment to mean something it doesn’t.

2. If one actually reads the 2nd Amendment, it suggests that the PURPOSE of not infringing on “the right of the people to bear arms” is to provide for a ready “standing” army (of the State or Nation, depending on how one interprets “State”), of citizens to defend the “security” of our fair nation. Did they have in mind pickup trucks full of crazed people toting single-shot muskets? Disturbed kids with bulletproof vests toting Bushmaster assault weapons? Or farmers and field-hands with muskets, who might be drafted or entreated to drive off a despot or two. One can’t be sure, of course, but I suspect the last is closest to the true case. Thus, the claims often heard that the 2nd was meant to provide for protection against our own government(s) seems unlikely. It seems unlikely that weekend field “exercises” with anti-tank weapons, flamethrowers, RPGs, and Bazookas was what the F#%* Fathers had in mind. Surely, one would prefer the trained Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force to do the job. Face it guys, you couldn’t hold off a company of regular army (with helicopter gunships, etc) if you wanted to! And those military-style assault weapons enthusiasts who roam our byways and more remote regions to shoot at targets containing pictures of their political enemies hardly constitute the “…well-regulated militia…” that is referenced in the 2nd. The weekend warriors who so often quote the 2nd (if they can remember it) are closer to anarchists and cultists than “well-regulated militia.”

3. Where in the 2nd Amendment does one see specified WHAT SORT of ARMS the People are entitled to bear? Surely, not poison gas grenades, RPGs, machine guns (already illegal), flame throwers, rockets, or tactical nuclear weapons! What then? Hunting rifles? Sure! Shotguns? Of course! Large-magazine rifles, pistols, or even shotguns? I don’t think so. Since that issue of “what kinds of arms” remains unspecified, the 2nd Amendment seems mute, and thus has no bearing on outlawing the sale, purchase, or possession of the weapons at issue…weapons of war, which have no place in a civilized society. Now, all we need is a civilized society!

~ GeezerGab, Former member of the NRA, and “Expert Rifleman”

:

FUNDRAISING FOR A LITERARY CAUSE

       

I have written this post at the request of Orna Ross for the blog of the Alliance of Independent Authors, an organization officially launched in 2012 in London.

The indiePENdents.org is an association of self-published authors, editors, proofreaders, and others interested in the future of literature. Our mission is to level the playing field and open the doors to new literary talents, where traditional publishing has closed them. 

I started this new passion in my 91st year. In less than 12 months, In that short time, the organization has reached its next level and its goals are on their way to fruition. With more than 300 registered members in cyberspace across the US and all continents, our operations are conducted on the web. Our website is www.indiePENdents.org.  

For the whole first year of the organization, Julia Petrakis (my editor and co-founder) and I have been the sole underwriters of this program in whose contribution to society and its culture we firmly believe. 

The indiePENdents.org became a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization in December 2012. Our services are free; no officer is paid. Why, then, are we asking for contributions?

As we grow, our success calls for more expenses than two citizens of modest means can carry on their shoulders. In asking the public to pitch in, our argument is:

Publishers are abandoning the role of literary scouts. We are taking it on.

Multinationals spend thousands of dollars to reach the public. They vouch for the quality of the books they print, but choose only those they consider as sure moneymakers. This forces many writers to self-publish. 

Independent authors don’t have the same financial ability to reach the eyes and ears of the public. Without the word of traditional gatekeepers, librarians  and readers have no way of knowing if a self-published book is any good. We intend to change that landscape. 

Our association evaluates independent books and recommends those that meet our basic standards of writing. We do this without charging any fees and without any  commercial interest. By using objective guidance, we remove any personal bias from the scrutiny, leaving no room for subjective taste and opinion. We deem those to be the readers’ prerogatives.

Our goal is to separate the well written from the badly written books. The award of a Seal of Good Writing goes to titles that meet our basic, objective standards, established by a membership plenum in the most democratic of ways, applied in cyberspace by majority vote. Members aren’t allowed to solicit professional services in order to keep our value judgments free of any possible bias.

By November 2012, we have awarded the Seal to 24 titles, representing a variety of genres. We listed them in our first ever catalog/brochure, WELL WRITTEN, WELL EDITED, UNKNOWN BOOKS - Don’t judge the book by its publisher. It can be downloaded free from our website. It is also available in print for $8 on Amazon. 

We would like to distribute the catalog to all the libraries we can reach; with a simultaneous PR effort to the media, in a quest for recognition of independent writers, this requires a substantially larger sum than the two founders can afford.

We hope to convince libraries to start offering their patrons independently produced titles, and let readers, rather than publishing business gatekeepers, decide which books the public wants to read. We would also like to use the document as our calling card to book and feature editors in all media.

It is a worthy cause in service to the cultural needs of our society. To achieve its goals, we need paying partners. The cause is worthy of support, and charitable gifts are fully tax deductible. 

That no talent be lost to the chaos of the publishing explosion

A harbinger of the future book market

A bookstore that features self-published writers

As founder of The indiependents.org, I hereby nominate the brick-and-mortar as well as cyber-bookstorewww.backtothebooks.net in Manitou Springs, CO -- a harbinger of the self-publishing future,

Still a rarity today, Back to the Books is a bookstore friendly to indie writers, showing others booksellers the way to survive in today’s turbulent book market. 

Print and digital titles of self-published authors can be purchased in the store, and ordered or downloaded from its website. The store offers individual writers a favorable consignment agreement, which it honors to a fault. The contact is Jon Renaud.

The indiePENdents invites other booksellers to follow this example and open their doors to indie literature, instead of discriminating against it and keeping it hidden from the reading public. 

Time to let the public sit in judgement

Wherever we turn, there are gatekeepers in place to turn off the undesirables. They are present in the city at the entrance to ‘exclusive’ nightclubs and on the seashore to keep riffraff away from private oceanfronts; but also reviewers who tell theatergoers whether or not to buy tickets for a show; and, of course, keepers at the gates of bookstores and libraries, preventing entrance to self-published authors not sanctioned by the Establishment.

As founder and president of The indiePENdents.org, I am concerned about the latter, because they prevent so many authors from reaching their audience, blocking the writer of a book from his/her readers,

The recording indies of the have cut the shackles of the big music industry and now publish and distribute freely without the censorship based on the bias of its middlemen, being it taste or finances. The copywriters now own their works, rather than having others manipulate it.

I have witnessed a play of particular poignancy to me, closed by fiat of a big critic’s bias. That power is still bestowed to mainstream publishing executives as the power to send a book into oblivion still rests with their gatekeepers.

I was already tired of all these talking heads, playing the Almighty with other people’s creativity, when The New York Times let Christopher Isherwood shoot a barrage against a Broadway play not because it was bad, but because it ‘disrespected’ him. 

I wrote the following letter to his paper, and it wasn't any welcome than my previous ones:

As a reader of the Critic’s Notebook, looking for what Charles Isherwood thinks about the current Broadway revival of 'Glengarry Glen Ross', I was sorely disappointed. The editor who let that piece through made me waste my time for what was essentially Mr. Isherwood's hissy fit at not being invited to issue his decree on the validity of the production.

More than any theatergoer, he is able to buy a ticket on the Times allowance, but he chose to be offended instead.

Good! Maybe the producers have stumbled upon a way of not letting official critics kill a play. 

I remember great critics in the not too distant past, eavesdropping on the theatergoers views on a play before adding their own. Today, the self-appointed arbiters of public’s taste manipulate the performing arts from their Olympus, just as other Establishment powers-to-be are allowed to wield their whip over book publishing. 

I maintain that it should be up to the theatergoers to determine the fate of Broadway plays, the same as it should be up to readers to judge the value of a book, regardless of whether it is printed by  officially self-sanctioned publisher or a self-published author himself. Gatekeepers are an impediment rather than facilitators of culture.

We are calling on librarians to open the door to self-published authors. The indiePENdents.org Seal of Good Writing should be enough to assure them a book is fit for their shelves. Their readers, individually or in book discussion clubs, will tell them what they think of the author and his/her title. 

Literature should not depend on middlemen’s biases and financial interests. 

An Open Letter from the President of ALA Maureen Sullivan to book publishers

As a founder of www.indiePENdents.org, I was delighted to see Ms. Sullivan take on the publishers for their refusal to make e-books available to libraries. The same publishers created a wall which prevents self-published authors to be displayed on library shelves. It is my hope that librarians all over will start accepting books with the indiePENdents.org Seal, ascertaining that they were "vetted" by our standards, We trust that the libraries will open the gates which the traditional publishing system put in the path of new authors.  Jasha M. Levi

CHICAGO — The following open letter was released by American Library Association (ALA) President Maureen Sullivan regarding Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, and Penguin refusal to provide access to their e-books in U.S. libraries. 

The open letter states:

It’s a rare thing in a free market when a customer is refused the ability to buy a company’s product and is told its money is “no good here.” Surprisingly, after centuries of enthusiastically supporting publishers’ products, libraries find themselves in just that position with purchasing e-books from three of the largest publishers in the world. Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, and Penguin have been denying access to their e-books for our nation’s 112,000 libraries and roughly 169 million public library users.

Let’s be clear on what this means: If our libraries’ digital bookshelves mirrored the New York Times fiction best-seller list, we would be missing half of our collection any given week due to these publishers’ policies. The popular “Bared to You” and “The Glass Castle” are not available in libraries because libraries cannot purchase them at any price. Today’s teens also will not find the digital copy of Judy Blume’s seminal “Forever,” nor today’s blockbuster “Hunger Games” series.

Not all publishers are following the path of these three publishers. In fact, hundreds of publishers of e-books have embraced the opportunity to create new sales and reach readers through our nation’s libraries. One recent innovation allows library patrons to immediately purchase an e-book if the library doesn’t have a copy or if there is a wait list they would like to avoid. This offers a win-win relationship for both publishers and library users since recent research from the Pew Internet Project tells us that library users are more than twice as likely to have bought their most recent book as to have borrowed it from a library.

Libraries around the country are developing mobile applications and online discovery systems that make it easier to explore books and authors on the go. Seventy-six percent of public libraries now offer e-books — double the number from only five years ago — and 39 percent of libraries have purchased and circulate e-readers. Public libraries alone spend more than $1.3 billion annually on their collections of print, audio, video, and electronic materials. They are investing not only in access to content and devices, but also in teaching the skills needed to navigate and utilize digital content successfully.

Librarians understand that publishing is not just another industry. It has special and important significance to society. Libraries complement and, in fact, actively support this industry by supporting literacy and seeking to spread an infectious and lifelong love of reading and learning. Library lending encourages patrons to experiment by sampling new authors, topics and genres. This experimentation stimulates the market for books, with the library serving as a de facto discovery, promotion and awareness service for authors and publishers.

Publishers, libraries and other entities have worked together for centuries to sustain a healthy reading ecosystem — celebrating our society’s access to the complete marketplace of ideas. Given the obvious value of libraries to publishers, it simply does not add up that any publisher would continue to lock out libraries. It doesn’t add up for me, it doesn’t add up for ALA’s 60,000 members, and it definitely doesn’t add up for the millions of people who use our libraries every month.

America’s libraries have always served as the “people’s university” by providing access to reading materials and educational opportunity for the millions who want to read and learn but cannot afford to buy the books they need. Librarians have a particular concern for vulnerable populations that may not have any other access to books and electronic content, including individuals and families who are homebound or low-income. To deny these library users access to e-books that are available to others — and which libraries are eager to purchase on their behalf — is discriminatory.

We have met and talked sincerely with many of these publishers. We have sought common ground by exploring new business models and library lending practices. But these conversations only matter if they are followed by action: Simon & Schuster must sell to libraries. Macmillan must implement its proposed pilot. Penguin must accelerate and expand its pilots beyond two urban New York libraries.

We librarians cannot stand by and do nothing while some publishers deepen the digital divide. We cannot wait passively while some publishers deny access to our cultural record. We must speak out on behalf of today’s — and tomorrow’s — readers.The library community demands meaningful change and creative solutions that serve libraries and our readers who rightfully expect the same access to e-books as they have to printed books.

So, which side will you be on? Will you join us in a future of liberating literature for all? Libraries stand with readers, thinkers, writers, dreamers and inventors. Books and knowledge — in all their forms — are essential. Access to them must not be denied.