Acceptable Theft

So, you may have noticed a bit of hubbub recently about the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act. I'm not going to talk about the bills, because the proposed legislation and potential enforcement risks have been dissected ad nauseum elsewhere. But I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately and I'd like to talk about the way our society seems to have come to view artistic products in the digital age - because in all the furor over the acts no one ever seemed to acknowledge that digital theft is wrong. That stealing a song or an ebook online is the same as shoving a book or CD under your shirt and sneaking out of Barnes & Noble or Best Buy.

You know why? Because it isn't exactly the same. The difference is in the consequences. You will get arrested for shoplifting, but downloading is viewed not only as an unpunishable offense, but almost as a right, a fucking privilege of the digital age. But see, freedom of information is not the same thing as taking someone's artistic endeavors without paying for it (their livelihood, but I'm trying to stay away from that argument because I know I'm too personally affected by this issue to be even remotely objective if we start talking about the fact that as a copyright holder I am one of the victims of this perceived-as-victimless crime).

Yes, the bills were likely unconstitutional and had a bevy of problems, but the rhetoric linking protecting copyrights to a dictator cracking down on the next Arab Spring was a bit much for me - not because the bills weren't a clumsy, "buy a bigger hammer" approach to the problem, but because not once did anyone acknowledge that piracy is wrong and there are people who are hurt by online theft. Fix the bills, propose new ones, don't just protest the very idea of cracking down on online theft!

If you'd rather hear this from Guns N Roses, check out Duff McKagan's Quit Whining About SOPA & PIPA. Where's the Public Outrage Over Online Piracy?

John Stewart - whom I am usually a fan of - brushed aside any impact piracy has on artists, authors, and musicians and tacitly encouraged his viewers to pirate copyrighted material from the Big Bad Corporations who make all the movies. Yeah, because theft is totally okay as long as you steal from someone who can afford it. Awesome.

You know there's a reason the phrase "starving artist" is a cliche. It's because most of us aren't bazillionaires who won't notice a few hundred thousand illegal copies of our books and songs being downloaded. I don't get a giant advance. I get paid on royalties (a percentage of each individual sale) - and just think, if I actually got paid for all those pirates who steal and read (and some of whom illegally sell) my books, I might be able to splurge and afford health insurance this year. (And I have epically failed at keeping this from getting personal. Oh well.)

But it's not about the legality. It's not about the bills. It's about the pervasive societal view that it's okay to steal, as long as it's this one particular kind of theft. It's so damn easy, but that doesn't make it right.

The thing is, there are legal, ethical, non-stealing ways of getting books for free. Become a reviewer. Go to author blogs (like this one where I have TONS of chances to win them, as do many authors). Join Goodreads and be on the lookout for their giveaways. Go to your local library - many of which are starting to lend ebooks. Use the borrowing feature on your device and trade with your friends. But piracy is THEFT.

How about a deal? I won't pick your pocket on the street if you don't download my books for free. Sound fair?

Bottom line: if you don't protect creative endeavors and intellectual property, eventually you won't have any art to enjoy anymore. Sorry, but that's just how it goes. If you take away a creative professional's ability to make a living doing what they love, they can't create the stuff you love anymore.

If you disagree with me, I'd love to hear your argument. Or if you have any insights into why we as a culture can't respect digital property I'd be curious to hear that as well. Or, better still, if you have any ideas on how we can shift perception to show that intellectual property is worth protecting, that would be amazing.

Your thoughts?

Don't Mess with Texas

It's time for another eye-rolling edition of "Really? You're that upset about a book?"

The Texas Department of Transportation is suing author Christie Craig and her publisher. Know why? Because the title of her latest release is "Don't Mess With Texas" and they trademarked that phrase as part of their anti-littering campaign. Still wondering why they're suing? Well, folks, it appears that Christie Craig's latest has been deemed "porn" in the lawsuit and the title of her book will cause "irreparable harm" to their attempts to keep Texas clean.

What a great thing for the government of Texas to do, right? Fabulous use of tax payer dollars.

I saw a workshop of Christie's once. Funny lady. Good writer. She writes light-hearted, flirty contemporaries in the vein of Jennifer Crusie if you haven't read her before. Click here to check out Don't Mess With Texas.

**UPDATE: This afternoon a judge threw out the case. Go Sam Sparks! Not only do you have a great name, you also have common sense. Well done, your honor.**

Monday Miscellany

First things first... we have a winner! Congratulations to Susan! Please email me (vivi@viviandrews.com) to collect your copy of A Cop & A Feel!

And in other news...

In the "Oh Lordy, not again" category, we have folks saying romance novels are bad for you. This time the cause is an article from a family planning group with what appears to be primarily anecdotal evidence stating that “Sometimes the kindest and wisest thing we can do for our clients is to encourage them to put down the books – and pick up reality.” They do give a nod to the studies done which argue the opposite, but the end result seems to be a concern that romance novels are not providing responsible sex education with regards to condom usage and sexual enjoyment. On some level I can agree with that, but see, I consider my job to entertain, not to provide a sex ed course. (And I would probably be much more receptive to their argument if they didn't have fuzzy math statements like: "some fans read up to 30 titles a month, one book every 2 days" followed by "exposure to ...romantic novels may be as much as a day every week")

Of course, reactions to the article abound, but one which I find rather entertaining is this one, entitled Are Romance Novels Hazardous to Your Sexual Health, which concludes with the question: "And if so, how can we change this genre to promote healthy sexual practices for both women and men?" To which I respond: Go buy the books that promote those healthy sexual practices. This is a business, people. You can't change it by vilifying it. Pitchforks don't change minds.


And in totally unrelated news, I'm over at the Ruby blog today talking about various publishing houses, of all things. Samhain is, of course, excellent beyond reason and I love them with all my fervent little heart, but there are other places out there and it's good for writerly sorts to know about them. So if you are a writerly sort and you want to head on over to take a look, here's the link: http://www.rubyslipperedsisterhood.com/tbd-6/

New Levels of Asshattery

Under the heading of Destroying Someone's Career Just to Get Ratings, a local news team in Pennsylvania aired a piece exposing the erotic romance pen name of a local high school teacher with a segment called Parents: English Teacher Writes Racy Novels.

ASSHOLES.

The piece features charming quotes from parents and former students who call her work disgusting and give not-so-veiled accusations that she must be having inappropriate thoughts about her students. Because yes, as a romance writer, I can't interact with another human being without picturing them naked and mid-coitus. It's a curse. In fact, I'm thinking of you reading this right now and OH MY GOD IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!

Does she write her books during class time? No. Was there any fault with her job performance? Nada. Was she advertising her activities, selling her books to minors or corrupting their morals in class? Nope. Otherwise her former students probably wouldn't have been "shocked" to discover this 25 year veteran of the teaching profession also happened to be an erotic romance author in her spare time. Her private time. Her own freaking life which she went to an effort to keep private and separate and you just stomped all over that by splashing it up on the evening news as a supposed warning to parents. Well done, WNEP. The Pulitzer is right around the corner for this brilliant piece of investigative witch-hunting.



If you'd like to know how to contact the station to let your feelings be known or lend your support to Judy Mays, the details are all up at Smart Bitches.

Did y'all notice the heading "Hot for Teacher" that was splashed across one of her book covers during the lead-in? Stay classy, WNEP.

Apples & Bananas: The Shocking Development that They Are Not the Same Thing

WARNING: What follows is a caps filled rant about semantics and precision of language. Yes, I am a word nerd. And these things make me crazy.

Everyone and their brother seem to be bragging about how awesome self-publishing is lately. And that's fabulous! Go on with your bad selves! Put the book that's been languishing away up for public consumption and enjoy the fruits of your labor! But could you please admit that when you are doing this you have a self-published ebook, rather than an epublished one?

I realize that the terms do not seem so very different, but for those of us who have been in epublishing a few years (and that is OUR FREAKING TERM AND THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE SO YOU STAY AWAY FROM IT YOU GRUBBY SELF-PUBS!) the confusion is a bit vexing.

The definitions according to Vivi:

Epublished: You have a contract with an electronic/digital-first publisher (Samhain, Ellora's Cave, Siren, etc.). The publisher arranged editorial, cover art, and distribution. They released your book and your royalties check comes from the publisher.

Self-published: You formatted your book yourself, providing your own cover art and editorial, and arranged distribution directly with Amazon, B&N and/or Smashwords. You released your book and your income is received directly from the distributor/retailer.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other. I am simply saying THESE TERMS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. And the more people are talking about self-publishing ("indie") versus traditional ("legacy" - where the hell did THAT term come from?) publishing, the more people seem to feel like they can just say epublishing instead of self-publishing. Which would be totally fine if there weren't ALREADY a publication system set up that is called epublishing and is quite different in pros and cons from self-publishing.

Seriously people, what is with the commandeering of terms when you already have a perfectly good one in "self-pub" <--- because THAT is exactly what it IS, you published it yourSELF. "Self-pub" may not sound glamorous, but it's accurate. Epublishing might also have been a lovely term to use, if not for the fact that it's ALREADY IN USE.

What about "digital", you may ask? Well, digital is also misleading because it can refer to ebooks that are released by traditional pubs alongside print releases, by epublishers, or by self-pubs. For clarity of language, you are just going to have to own the fact that self-publication is what you are doing.

It feels like someone wanting to rename Apples "Bananas" because it sounds yummier. As a banana enthusiast, I'd be vexed. And so here I am, vexed. (And wow, I could really go for a banana right about now. Maybe with some chocolate. Mmmm, chocolate... Have you ever had a frozen banana dipped in chocolate? Soooo gooooood. Chocolately banana crystals... Ahem.)

So as you are touting this new fangled self-publishing awesomesauce, I wish you luck, but can we have a little precision in language? PLEASE. We're writers, for crying out loud. Use the right word.

END RANT. Thank you.

A Complicated Business

The publishing landscape is changing and there's been much chatter lately about self-publishing, even among the more "establishment" type authors.

Stephanie Laurens recently started a blog where some of the heavy-hitter authors are discussing the new digital age. Dear Author had a post up a while back about how readers are going to find new authors now as the internet changes everything. And as self-publishing becomes a more and more viable option for those authors who already have audiences, it seems more and more appealing to newbies starting out.

But whenever I hear an unpublished writer say she's made the decision to self-publish, I still have a little internal flinch. Now, I refuse to be as down on self-pubbing as the mainstream publishing community was on digital publishing a few years back. I don't want to be prejudiced and I do think it's a fascinating opportunity... for backlist titles, or continuations of series that don't get the mainstream nod, or veteran authors who already have audiences. But I'm leery of previously unpublished writers who take vocal pride in "going rogue" and "defying the gatekeepers" and jump straight into self-publishing without the seasoning of working with editors & agents in the mainstream channels.

Not to say those untested books can't be wonderful, but the thing is, I've learned a huge amount from working with editors (and I'm still pretty new - there's still much more to learn). They've helped me figure out how to ride with my publishing training wheels. I think authors really benefit from that process. The editors aren't standing between you and your audience, locking the gate. Their job is to get the best possible product to the reader - just like us.

When newbie authors jump the fence, I feel like they may be missing necessary pieces of the learning process - like rejection (yes, a necessary part) and overcoming our own stubborn (stupid) belief that our baby is perfect just the way it is. (I'm more inclined to think my stuff sucks than it is perfect, but I think I might be a minority there.)

I just think there's a difference between a writing veteran taking the self-publishing plunge (because they see it as a better financial bet or they want the control) and a frustrated unpublished writer deciding they know better than publishing professionals. To me, it's about perspective. Both the need for outside perspective, and the changed perspective experience can give you. Again, I don't mean to say that newbie authors jumping straight into publishing can't produce utterly brilliant books, but I have to approach those books more dubiously (and wonder if they wouldn't have been even more earthshattering with a shot of perspective).

I guess my take is... I don't have anything against self-publishing, but if you go that route, please don't be too smug about all the steps you're skipping. The more superior you act, the more inclined I am to think you're setting yourself up for a fall. There's more to it than royalty percentages...

What do you think, as a reader? Are you leery of self-published books that don't have a publisher's stamp of approval? Does an author's previous traditional-publishing-track record make a difference to you? Or do you not give a rip where the book comes from as long as it's good? Have you been burned by a bad self-pubbed book? Will you give them another try?

Borders Bankruptcy

As you may have already heard, Borders filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Tuesday and announced the planned closure of 200 of their 600+ stores. The Wall Street Journal provided a list of the stores closing. One of them? The only Borders in the state of Alaska. (Also of note to me: the Kailua Borders will also close and in Ohio the Sawmill & Kenny Rd stores are both shutting their doors as well.) So pretty much every Borders I've ever been to. It is safe to say I will not be shopping at Borders in the foreseeable future.

I live in a fairly large town. We have countless restaurants, half a dozen mutli-plex cinemas, two Costcos, three Walmarts, two Targets, and three major book stores - one Borders, one Barnes & Noble, and one large independent store that specializes in used books. I would probably be sadder to see Borders go, but for the fact that they've never carried my books (selfish of me, but true) and the customer service at my local branch leaves something to be desired. Mostly, I'm just bummed that B&N and Title Wave are going to be so much more crowded when it was already hard to find a chair.

And I'm curious to see what company will move into their retail space - it really is a beautiful free-standing building in an excellent location. The fact that Borders tanked there has nothing to do with the excellent, high-traffic, high-visibility location and everything to do with a decade of poor business decisions. Do you remember ten years ago when you clicked on "Buy It Online" at the Borders website and you were redirected to the "Borders" tab on Amazon? Really, how small did they think this whole interwebz thing was gonna be that they decided to siphon all their early-adapter web-business to one of their competitors rather than establishing their own online storefront? And no one can deny they've been distinctly behind the curve on ebooks which have saved B&N as brick and mortar store sales decline.

The times, they are a'changing and Borders is finally going to have to catch up. Here's hoping they can restructure as a company and haul themselves out of bankruptcy. It's a shame for the publishing houses for whom Borders' "debt" of millions has become "loss." (Penguin is out over 40 mil.) It will be interesting to see how they evolve and whether they survive.

Beware the Knitters

If you are a romance reader in the mood for some indignation and WTFery, pop on over to Smart Bitches and check out SB Sarah's analysis of Bloomberg BusinessWeek's recent look at the romance industry. Pull out your flasks, darlings, cuz this is a heck of a drinking game.

On the plus side of the article - yay, Romance! We're a growth industry, y'all! Long live the happily-ever-after!

In 2009 romance novel sales continued to defy industry trends, increasing to $1.4 billion, up $100 million, or 7.7 percent, from the previous year, according to Simba Information's annual Business of Consumer Book Publishing report. Romance now accounts for 14 percent of all works of fiction sold. Some 75 million people read at least one romance novel in 2009, and it's the top-performing category on the best-seller lists compiled by The New York Times, USA Today, and industry trade Publishers Weekly.

Of course, then he gets all patronizing. Here's a charming example of his take on the popularity of knitting & quilting themed romances:

The industry would seem challenged to find greater mundanity (bridge games? Wheel of Fortune reruns?), yet that's what the public is demanding.

Now, I'm not a crafty person, but I'm also of the opinion that mocking something just because it is a popular trend doesn't make you erudite and insightful. It makes you a dick. You can not get it (I do not understand the appeal of most domestic tasks - knitting, sewing, cooking, you name it), but at least respect the fact that it makes others happy. Dude.

Don't piss off the knitters, Bloomberg. They're armed and dexterous.

And the RITA goes to...

Boys and girls! It's the big day! The day of the Romance Writers of America's RITA/Golden Heart ceremony. What's that, you ask? Only the biggest award out there in the romance writing industry. The Oscars of romance, if you will. The RITAs are for published books, while the Golden Heart represent the unpublished up-and-comers we hope to see on best seller lists in years to come.

And who won this year? Oh, baby. There's a lot of awesome in this group.

There's a link to the complete list of winners below, but I'm gonna gush about a few notables. On the Golden Heart side, two Rubies won this year! Mad congrats to CJ Eernisse Chase (Inspirational) and Elisa Beatty (Regency Rockstar Goddess of Epic Proprotions who also won two categories of the Royal Ascot Historical Romance competition this year, why the hell is this woman not published yet?). Yay, RUBIES!

And in my category, the Single Title Contemporary Golden Heart baton was passed to Lizbeth Selvig - who I met a couple years back at the Emerald City Writers Conference and who it is safe to say rocks some serious socks. Congrats, Lizbeth! (I wasn't able to be there to give out the Golden Heart, so they got Roxanne St. Claire to fill in. I'm sure Lizbeth didn't mind the substitution... given that it was Rocki-freaking-St.Claire. Dude.)

Roxanne St. Claire with RITA winner Kresley Cole.

On the RITA side, there was much "woot, woot"-ing at Casa Andrews as the announcements went out and some of my All Time Favorite Authors got the nod. (Oh, the awesome! I can hardly contain myself!)

Sherry Thomas won Historical for Not Quite a Husband (which I will confess I haven't read yet though it is on my TBR pile right now but I was lucky enough to crash a dinner with her at RT this year and I can vouch for the deep, deep awesomeness she possesses). Congrats, Sherry!

Then two of my hero-worship favs won back-to-back! Julia Quinn for What Happens in London (Oh-my-freaking-god, I loved that book) won the Regency Historical and joined the RWA Hall of Fame for winning her third RITA! And then Kresley Cole took home her second Paranormal Romance RITA for Kiss of a Demon King (which was that one with Sabine the deeply badass anti-heroine and I love to see the tough-girl heroines getting the RWA love).

Finish the night off with Kristan Higgins taking home the Single Title Contemporary RITA for Too Good to Be True (brilliant!) and... well, it's a pretty sweet line-up.

Mad congrats to all the RITA and Golden Heart winners and nominees! Enjoy every second of your most deserved recognition!

Q&A with Wanda Ottewell

Today Wanda Ottewell, the Senior Editor of Harlequin's Superromance line, is answering questions at the Ruby blog. This is a don't-miss for aspiring scribes contemplating category romance. Check it out!

Pink is the New Black

I sometimes wonder if I've been contaminated by an over-exposure to Romancelandia. Reading and writing used to be private activities for me, but the whole Author Persona thing has changed that somewhat.

Three years ago, I had no idea the Romance Community even existed and I knew a great big nada about the Publishing Industry (though of course I thought I knew more than I did). Now, my growing awareness of the vast community of romance readers & writers trickles into my reading and writing experiences. And honestly, I'm not entirely sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. (Probably a bit of both.)

I used to pick which projects I worked on in a sort of haphazard, impulsive way. My first romance came about because it burrowed into my brain and refused to leave. Up to that point I had only written books with...erm, let's call it a "questionable market appeal".

When I decided to stop being a hobbyist and start writing for publication, I realized I had to actually consider not only whether my writing was good, but whether anyone would ever buy it. That was the birth of my awareness of market trends.

As I heard some big author (I wanna say Susan Mallery? Stephanie Bond? Someone else whose first name is an "S" name?) say at a conference (paraphrasing here) "I have a lot of books I want to write, I might as well write the one that's going to sell." Or something like that. And I pretty much agree with that. I have a stack of ideas, and they all appeal to me, so I might as well write the one that's likely to make me some cashola.

But how do you know which one is going to sell? And "selling" exists on two levels. You have to hook the editor (agent, publisher, etc.) and get them to offer a contract, but then you have to take it the next step and hook the reader. With each contract, the publisher is trying to predict the reader trends (which I tend to think is wholly impossible, so you should just buy great books, publisher-friend, and pray like hell that they catch on, but maybe I'm just too ignorant of the publisher's inner workings to realize that they do, indeed, successfully predict and direct trends).

So to be a Mega Star Author, you have to be lucky enough to ride the wave of the Big Trend all the way to shore. (This metaphor is gonna get unwieldy. I can feel it.) Surfing that wave means having the skill (writing chops) to avoid getting rolled and knocking yourself unconscious on the coral. But it also means being able to see the wave coming so you know when to start paddling - i.e. identifying the trend when it is still just a swell in the ocean miles off shore.

TANGENT: My dad tried to teach my mom to body surf on one of their first dates. He did not understand that my mother, though an excellent swimmer, was blind as a bat and couldn't see the waves and therefore couldn't catch them. #dadfail END TANGENT.

So, if we keep working the metaphor to death (cuz who doesn't love standing over a bloody metaphor with a machete?), publishing executives are essentially standing on the shore (because the writers are the actual surfers, yeah?) staring out at the ocean and trying to predict which wave out of which set they think is going to break biggest so they know when to shout, "Paddle now!" (i.e. when to buy). Sometimes being the surfer who catches the wave is just a matter of being the one who happens to be sitting on her board staring at the horizon at that moment - right place, right time. (Of course, you still have to know how to surf in the first place. Ain't no substitute for writing chops.)

One of those waves (actually several of them, if you ask me) was named Vampires. It was a doozie. A honey set of awesome revenues. And now the publishing masses are staring out at the horizon, squinting at the swells and whispering to one another. Does that one look like the Vampire wave did before it hit?

And then they build hype for the wave... (Total breakdown of metaphor. I have no idea how hyping the wave has anything to do with surfing. Psyching yourself up, maybe?) Werewolves are the new Vampires! Demons are the new Vampires! Zombies are the new Vampires! Gods/Superheroes/Minotaurs (<-- click for the funny. Dude, I love the Onion.) are the new Vampires!

It reminds me of Josie & the Pussycats. The movie. Did you see that one? Pink is the new black! Orange is the new pink! Green is the new orange! Consumerism, yay! Ride the trend, baby! Ride it hard!

The movie was actually kinda sweet. About authenticity of expression in a way. You can like us or not like us (and we hope you like us) but we're gonna do our thing. Not the trendy thing. Because you gotta be true to yourself, yo.

I saw this thing Jennifer Enderlin of St. Martin's Press (I am not above admitting I have a mad editor-crush on her) said at Book Expo America recently about how she's "excited by authors who buck trends and not doing what's hot." But how does the Not Hot Author get her book onto Ms. Enderlin's desk? You have to be willing to swim really hard against the current for a long time to get there. (Not that I'm lazy. I'm just, you know, lazy.)

So do we go for the trend? Against the trend? Try to predict the trend? Forget about the trend because it's impossible to predict anyway?

Heck if I know. All I know is that for a while I've been hearing contemporary romance is out of favor, especially funny contemporary, so don't even submit it to us because we don't want to see it. And now I see all these folks making funny contemp deals and I'm sitting here thinking, Damn, I should have been riding that wave.

Does it matter? Not really. I plan on surfing a long time. Eventually I'll be in the right place at the right time to catch a big wave. In the mean time, I'm practicing on the waves I've got.

Right now, I've got a shifter story to finish...

Reality Check

So the other day I saw this article about HCI's announcement of a new line of books, bringing reality to romance novels. Real life couples, real life romances, as told by romance writers.

I don't think it's a terrible idea, but the concept holds no appeal for me - as both a reader and a writer. I like my fiction fictional. I like the creative freedom of making it all up. For one thing, that delicious fakeness helps me suspend my disbelief. I also like the paranormal & historical -which are just flat out of the question. (I'm waiting for the first vampire romance to come out of this line with bated breath. Har.)

Sure, I like a good anecdote of a real life romance as much as the next person, but why not just write a memoir? Why sell your story to be told by a romance writer?

The couples volunteering seem... I don't know, maybe like they are bragging about their happily ever after? And how do we know they're being honest? Will it be a scandal to discover that they didn't do all that stuff they said they did in the handy-dandy questionnaire used to compose their story?

Where does the author come in? Are they romantic historians now, taking down the stories told them? Romances should be more than just the story of Jane meeting John and living happily ever after. To me, they are more even than conflict and drama and love. The underlying themes in every good book... how is the author going to fit in symbolism and the layers of a good book into the story that must obey the rules of a real-life he-said-she-said?

And (this might be the biggest thing) I think I am more likely to relate to a character I know is fictional than one I think is based on a real person. I'm not sure why this is the case. Maybe it has something to do with the emotional distance involved. I can slide into a character's shoes, but I would feel like an interloper stepping into the emotional shoes of a real person.

It's like reality TV. Though oddly voyeuristic and emotionally exploitative, there is drama there. Entertainment even. But it's never going to have the same cultural value as Shakespeare. Art requires creative license. The most powerful emotional truth is found behind the curtain of fiction. (And if you want to argue that romances aren't Shakespeare, just remember romance is what made Shakespeare famous.)

What do you think? Would you shell out $13.95 for a real-life romance? Or are you saving your hard earned cash for a fantasy escape?

A Brave New World of Publishing... Without the Publishers

Ladies and gentlemen, things have just gotten a lot more interesting.

In the past, publishers printed, distributed and marketed books. Authors had to write something publishers wanted to buy before they could figure out whether readers wanted to read it. Publishers were driven by the desire to produce great works of fiction (and non-fiction), but they were also driven by the bottom line. Publishing is a business and that big publishing house wants to make money. Predicting popularity is a gamble and they are always looking for what will be the next new thing - which can be great if you are what they think will be the next big thing and not so great if you aren't. They hold the keys to the kingdom.

The internet is changing all that. New electronic publishers with lower overhead costs are able to take chances on new authors (like me!). And if you want to skip the publisher entirely and try to print and distribute your own book (like my cousin did) then there are self-publishing companies available offering their services. (Note: I'm talking self not vanity publishing. That's a whole nother kettle of fish.)

But what if you are an established author and you want to skip the publisher entirely, releasing your own ebooks directly to your faithful readers... Is that the new trend? Straight from the author to the reader with no middlemen?

J.A. Konrath talks openly on his blog about the relative profitability of his Big Publisher books and the ones he self-released through Amazon. And now... drumroll please... Lynn Abbey, CJ Cherryh & Jane Fancher have opened up their own online storefront, designed to distribute their books the way they want them. You can read more about their venture and the intentions behind it HERE.

Are editors, agents & big publishers a thing of the past? I don't think so. But I do think the industry is changing a little bit more every day and this is a fascinating time to be a part of it. Market analysts are calling this Christmas the Year of the Kindle and Amazon bragged that more ebooks than print books were sold on Christmas Day.

The way we read and the way we get books may change, but I am certain there will always be work for those who want to make good books and get them into readers' hands.