New Year's Resolution: Keep It Simple

This is what I keep coming back to when I think about publishing my wip: keep it simple. I've read all the arguments for and against publishing through legacy publishers, and I can't imagine going the traditional route. Translation: I can't see sending out tons of query emails to agents only for them to turn me down (because my book is weird), can't imagine finally finding that one agent who'll take a chance on me after a year of searching only for no publishers to show interest.


I can imagine lots of things, but this I can't.


What I can envisage is this: finishing my wip, editing it to a pulp, rebuilding it into something beautiful, showing it to writers I trust, re-editing it, and then publishing it myself. This is all I can actually see doing.


Am I insane?


I've gotten to a point in my life where patience is no longer a virtue. I can be patient; that's not the issue--it's that I'm worried that if I'm too patient, I'll die being patient and not being a published writer.


So this is my New Year's resolution: keep it simple. Publish your vision. See if anyone catches on. And then keep writing.

Give Us Us Free

Remember that line from Amistad, the Steven Spielberg movie? When the slave Cinque stands up in that colonial courtroom and screams "Give us us free!" over and over again? It's a very poignant and genuine moment in the midst of an awful overall film. But it's stuck with me.

I like the simple, direct, and profound sentiment tied up in his statement. Cinque's intelligent eyes darting back and forth, trying to cobble together what little English he knows. This is the deepest desire of every human being on earth. We all just want to be free.

I just saw an old clip of George Carlin doing his thing. He was great, I loved him a lot. This particular routine involved him telling the audience point blank that we're all owned by corporations, and these corporate overlords are making it increasingly hard for us to live happy lives. Want an education? You'd better be ready to go into indentured servitude to afford it. Want to work only one job and maintain a healthy lifestyle? Keep dreaming.

This, I think, extends to us as writers. Do we really want to tie ourselves to huge conglomerate corporations just to stroke our vanity, just so our book can be seen in every Walmart in America? Just to become rich? Some of us do, and I'm not judging. But as for me, as I get older, I just don't want that. I want to be able to write what I write and not have to restrict my content to whatever a company tells me to restrict it to.

No.

I work hard to pay my bills and try to scrimp and save where I can. But I refuse to let any company touch my art. I won't do it. It's mine. It's what keeps me free.

Too Big, Must Fail

I was perusing my daily blog roll yesterday when this article caught my eye. I doubt the author had the book publishing biz in mind when he wrote it, but it's all I could think about from start to finish.

Here's the core of the article:

Big companies often get stagnant, focusing less on innovation and more on protecting a market...And, as Andy Kessler noted in his most recent book, the innovators, who get around those things and unleash value, are often derided as thieves and criminals for undermining established business models. But what comes out of those upstart efforts is, generally, much better for the consumer.

I get that legacy pubs want to protect what market share they can in this kinda-turning-around-but-not-really economy. That's just business. Trouble is, this affects me directly because unless I get extraordinarily lucky (or, considering most legacy pubs' reputations for not paying authors well, unlucky), I will not be published in the standard way. So the only route left is to self-publish.

I'm guessing this is how the guys at Twitter felt when they were getting ready to release their micro-blogging site. I remember hearing about micro-blogging and going, "That sounds stupid. Who can form a complete thought in 140 characters? It'll never work. And anyway, who can come up with enough interesting stuff to fill all the dead space that would inevitably crop up?"

Everyone under the sun was loving Facebook and traditional blogging so much. Many viewed the Twitter lot as "criminals" wanting to diminish our precious attention spans even further. I was in that mob, I'm sad to say, weilding my torch at the Frankenstein monster that we hoped would go mess with some other town.

Fast forward five years: Twitter is where it's at, at least for those of us who have to market ourselves. I think indie authors are in that awkward place right now where lots of people see them (wrongly) as lazy, or just not very talented, but at the same time there's this fascination with e-readers. And also, culturally, there is a backlash against institutions, and not just here but all around the world (read: the Middle East, Greece, et al.).

So I'm going to probably self-publish my WIP. I love the technology, and can't imagine that people of all ages won't be carrying Kindles/Nooks/whatever with them wherever they go soon. What do you think? Am I wrong and the market for e-readers will plateau (especially for certain age groups, like children)? Do you think readers will start to dislike their new role as gatekeepers? Let me know!

Too Big, Must Fail

I was perusing my daily blog roll yesterday when this article caught my eye. I doubt the author had the book publishing biz in mind when he wrote it, but it's all I could think about from start to finish.

Here's the core of the article:

Big companies often get stagnant, focusing less on innovation and more on protecting a market...And, as Andy Kessler noted in his most recent book, the innovators, who get around those things and unleash value, are often derided as thieves and criminals for undermining established business models. But what comes out of those upstart efforts is, generally, much better for the consumer.

I get that legacy pubs want to protect what market share they can in this kinda-turning-around-but-not-really economy. That's just business. Trouble is, this affects me directly because unless I get extraordinarily lucky (or, considering most legacy pubs' reputations for not paying authors well, unlucky), I will not be published in the standard way. So the only route left is to self-publish.

I'm guessing this is how the guys at Twitter felt when they were getting ready to release their micro-blogging site. I remember hearing about micro-blogging and going, "That sounds stupid. Who can form a complete thought in 140 characters? It'll never work. And anyway, who can come up with enough interesting stuff to fill all the dead space that would inevitably crop up?"

Everyone under the sun was loving Facebook and traditional blogging so much. Many viewed the Twitter lot as "criminals" wanting to diminish our precious attention spans even further. I was in that mob, I'm sad to say, weilding my torch at the Frankenstein monster that we hoped would go mess with some other town.

Fast forward five years: Twitter is where it's at, at least for those of us who have to market ourselves. I think indie authors are in that awkward place right now where lots of people see them (wrongly) as lazy, or just not very talented, but at the same time there's this fascination with e-readers. And also, culturally, there is a backlash against institutions, and not just here but all around the world (read: the Middle East, Greece, et al.).

So I'm going to probably self-publish my WIP. I love the technology, and can't imagine that people of all ages won't be carrying Kindles/Nooks/whatever with them wherever they go soon. What do you think? Am I wrong and the market for e-readers will plateau (especially for certain age groups, like children)? Do you think readers will start to dislike their new role as gatekeepers? Let me know!

My Book is YA...Or is it?

Question of the century: is my book written for a YA audience or for kids? If it's got huge pictures and about seven words on each page, it's clearly written for children. If it's got a major character named Ruffley Von Rufflefeather, then odds are it's a children's book. But what if my WIP doesn't fit into a neat box like this? That's what I want to know.

Wikipedia says that "The Young Adult Library Services (YALSA) of the American Library Association (ALA) defines a young adult as 'someone between the ages of twelve and eighteen'" and goes on to say that "theme and style are often subordinated to the more tangible basic narrative elements such as plot, setting, and character, which appeal more readily to younger readers" and "The vast majority of YA stories portray an adolescent as the protagonist, rather than an adult or a child." (OK, I promise I'll stop quoting Wikipedia now).

But what if my main character is younger than an adolescent but my book deals with dark subject matter, more appropriate for young adults than young children to read? But what if it's still got goofy character names like Brumchalk Littlewing? (Aside: that's not an actual character's name from my book; I just made it up to illustrate a point).

This is a big question because, as Nathan Bransford notes on his terrific blog, if you're a children's author (as he is), you really shouldn't be self-publishing for a range of reasons, one of which being that print still dominates in that age range (Bransford reasons that not many parents are rushing out to buy their 8-year-olds Kindles at the moment).

Which makes sense. But part of me really, really wants to self publish. I'm heartened by the fact that J.K. Rowling is considered by Wikipedia (the final authority on all matters, don't you know?) to be a YA writer, because while my WIP is really nothing like the Harry Potter books, my intention for it is to appeal to a broad age range, as the HP books do.

So should I forsake self-pubbing because my book may tread too close to the boundary line that separates children's and YA fiction? Maybe Bransford is right: maybe I'd have a better shot at selling books going the traditional, legacy route. I don't know. It would be interesting to know if anyone else out there is going through a similar marketing crisis.

My Book is YA...Or is it?

Question of the century: is my book written for a YA audience or for kids? If it's got huge pictures and about seven words on each page, it's clearly written for children. If it's got a major character named Ruffley Von Rufflefeather, then odds are it's a children's book. But what if my WIP doesn't fit into a neat box like this? That's what I want to know.

Wikipedia says that "The Young Adult Library Services (YALSA) of the American Library Association (ALA) defines a young adult as 'someone between the ages of twelve and eighteen'" and goes on to say that "theme and style are often subordinated to the more tangible basic narrative elements such as plot, setting, and character, which appeal more readily to younger readers" and "The vast majority of YA stories portray an adolescent as the protagonist, rather than an adult or a child." (OK, I promise I'll stop quoting Wikipedia now).

But what if my main character is younger than an adolescent but my book deals with dark subject matter, more appropriate for young adults than young children to read? But what if it's still got goofy character names like Brumchalk Littlewing? (Aside: that's not an actual character's name from my book; I just made it up to illustrate a point).

This is a big question because, as Nathan Bransford notes on his terrific blog, if you're a children's author (as he is), you really shouldn't be self-publishing for a range of reasons, one of which being that print still dominates in that age range (Bransford reasons that not many parents are rushing out to buy their 8-year-olds Kindles at the moment).

Which makes sense. But part of me really, really wants to self publish. I'm heartened by the fact that J.K. Rowling is considered by Wikipedia (the final authority on all matters, don't you know?) to be a YA writer, because while my WIP is really nothing like the Harry Potter books, my intention for it is to appeal to a broad age range, as the HP books do.

So should I forsake self-pubbing because my book may tread too close to the boundary line that separates children's and YA fiction? Maybe Bransford is right: maybe I'd have a better shot at selling books going the traditional, legacy route. I don't know. It would be interesting to know if anyone else out there is going through a similar marketing crisis.

Reflections on a Cabbage-Eating Gorilla

There is a giant gorilla lurking around the internet these days. She weighs 4,264 pounds, eats raw cabbage, and answers to the name "Temperance." This gorilla has a purple pelt and, if you see her, stand still, for she attacks people who make sudden movements.

All right, enough with the metaphor. Authors these days seem to fall into three camps: those who are all about going the legacy pubbing route, those who are all for self-pubbing, and those unseen masses who, uneasy to discuss the giant gorilla in the room, tend not to say what's really on their mind. These folks, I am here to tell you, are unsure about which path to take, legacy or self-pubbing. I am one of these people.

Of course, as with everything in life, there are shades of gray within all three camps, but since I am a simple man who likes to speak in broad generalities, let's keep to my 3-camp model for now. As I said, I place myself firmly in the latter group. I see advantages to both leg-pubbing (a real term?) and to self-pubbing, but no clear-cut, slam-dunk reason to go either way.

The advantages I'm referring to are likely obvious to anyone who pays attention to the writing biz (i.e. leg-pubbing gives you great exposure while self-pubbing gives you more control), so I won't belabor the point. My point is, I don't see much written in either tweet or blog form about us wait-and-watchers. It seems there's some social pressure to lock yourself firmly into either the ra-ra leg-pub crowd or the screw-those-legacy-goons-and-the-horse-they-rode-in-on bunch, even before you've finished writing your first book.

Admittedly, I'm in a relatively luxurious position right now. As someone who's in the midst of writing the first book that they intend to publish, I can afford to bide my time, watching the landscape shift before me. But I'll have to choose sides soon. Some days I wake up convinced that I want an agent, and I zealously tear open my Jeff Herman Guide and start check marking all of the agents I'll canvas with query letters. Other days, I wake up full of optimism about publishing and marketing my book the way I want to, straight to Kindle.

It's OK if you're going through this--you're not alone. And the good news is that if you decide to self-publish, you can always go the legacy pubbing route later on. Or vice versa, unless you get locked into a book deal, in which case, kudos to you! At any rate, I just wanted to get this out there because I've been thinking a lot about it lately and feeling a bit lonely in my reflections. If you have any insight into this issue, please leave a comment--I'm interested to hear your opinions!

Reflections on a Cabbage-Eating Gorilla

There is a giant gorilla lurking around the internet these days. She weighs 4,264 pounds, eats raw cabbage, and answers to the name "Temperance." This gorilla has a purple pelt and, if you see her, stand still, for she attacks people who make sudden movements.

All right, enough with the metaphor. Authors these days seem to fall into three camps: those who are all about going the legacy pubbing route, those who are all for self-pubbing, and those unseen masses who, uneasy to discuss the giant gorilla in the room, tend not to say what's really on their mind. These folks, I am here to tell you, are unsure about which path to take, legacy or self-pubbing. I am one of these people.

Of course, as with everything in life, there are shades of gray within all three camps, but since I am a simple man who likes to speak in broad generalities, let's keep to my 3-camp model for now. As I said, I place myself firmly in the latter group. I see advantages to both leg-pubbing (a real term?) and to self-pubbing, but no clear-cut, slam-dunk reason to go either way.

The advantages I'm referring to are likely obvious to anyone who pays attention to the writing biz (i.e. leg-pubbing gives you great exposure while self-pubbing gives you more control), so I won't belabor the point. My point is, I don't see much written in either tweet or blog form about us wait-and-watchers. It seems there's some social pressure to lock yourself firmly into either the ra-ra leg-pub crowd or the screw-those-legacy-goons-and-the-horse-they-rode-in-on bunch, even before you've finished writing your first book.

Admittedly, I'm in a relatively luxurious position right now. As someone who's in the midst of writing the first book that they intend to publish, I can afford to bide my time, watching the landscape shift before me. But I'll have to choose sides soon. Some days I wake up convinced that I want an agent, and I zealously tear open my Jeff Herman Guide and start check marking all of the agents I'll canvas with query letters. Other days, I wake up full of optimism about publishing and marketing my book the way I want to, straight to Kindle.

It's OK if you're going through this--you're not alone. And the good news is that if you decide to self-publish, you can always go the legacy pubbing route later on. Or vice versa, unless you get locked into a book deal, in which case, kudos to you! At any rate, I just wanted to get this out there because I've been thinking a lot about it lately and feeling a bit lonely in my reflections. If you have any insight into this issue, please leave a comment--I'm interested to hear your opinions!

Line Between Legacy Publishers and Self-Pubbers: Myth or Reality?

I was thinking about something over the weekend. Maybe this is obvious to everyone, maybe it's not, but the more I think about it, the happier I get. Here's my thought: is there really such a difference between self-pubbers and legacy publishing houses? I know, I know. You'll come back at me with, "Well obviously, Chris--people READ books published by Penguin because Penguin stands for Quality, whereas they think something printed by Chris Hobson Inc. is probably a cut just above preschool marble painting.

Granted.

But I know a couple of people who started publishing houses of their own. That's right: they just up and said, "You know, I think I'll start publishing people's books." And they did. And they published good stuff by excellent authors. But how, may I ask, is this different than publishing your own book?

I know they didn't publish their own books; that's not what I'm saying. They published other people's books. But it was them doing the publishing, not some faceless corporation with a decaying old man at the helm. And believe me, they didn't have fleets of editors or artists at their beck and call: they had to arrange for all of those services on their own.

It's weird: just because they called their enterprises "publishing houses" they gained instant credibility. One of the guys was able to consistently place ads in Publisher's Weekly for his clients. Try doing that for your latest greatest self-pubbed novel. I don't know for certain, but something tells me you'd get laughed off the phone. But what gets me is that these guys had to hustle for their clients, they had to track down cover artists, get layout work done, promote the books to industry magazines, beg book store managers to give them space on an end cap to display the books. If you looked close, their whole operations were held together with balsa wood and chewing gum.

I say again: how is this any different than someone self-pubbing their own books?

One of these guys had zero industry experience before starting his company. He'd never been an editor, never been a literary agent, wasn't bedding down with the scioness of some publishing house. He just worked his butt off and published a bunch of books that looked beautiful and were credits to their authors.

To me, this exposes the thin line between the perceived prestige of being published by a full-blown legacy publisher and just doing it yourself, because I saw these guys scrambling and working two to three other jobs just to support their ventures, and how there was no magic involved. I concede: if you go with a house, you might get an advance. You might get good editing done. You won't have to shell out your own money for anything, and, especially if you go with a small outfit, you'll get one person doing the publicity, the editing, the layout, etc. so you'll have instant accountability.

But to me, these guys were basically self-publishers of other people's work. Ok, granted they didn't have the industry heft of a St. Martin's or a Harper. But their books looked just as pretty, and they had just as good of blurbs printed on the back covers. And I'm telling you, the books they published were just as good if not better than 2/3 of the crap big publishers churn out each year.

All this is to say that as long as you work hard and make your book as good as it can possibly be, there is no shame whatsoever in self publishing. As I often caution in my blog posts, I've never published either via legacy publishers or via self-publishing, but I'm writing a book now that I'm probably going to self-publish, so a lot of what I write is to motivate myself as much as it is to help others.

Bottom line: while you might catch a few guffaws when telling people you're a self-published author, as long as your book is good, you should be able to confidently look them in the eyes and say, "You think my stuff sucks? Whatever. Buy a copy and see for yourself."

Line Between Legacy Publishers and Self-Pubbers: Myth or Reality?

I was thinking about something over the weekend. Maybe this is obvious to everyone, maybe it's not, but the more I think about it, the happier I get. Here's my thought: is there really such a difference between self-pubbers and legacy publishing houses? I know, I know. You'll come back at me with, "Well obviously, Chris--people READ books published by Penguin because Penguin stands for Quality, whereas they think something printed by Chris Hobson Inc. is probably a cut just above preschool marble painting.

Granted.

But I know a couple of people who started publishing houses of their own. That's right: they just up and said, "You know, I think I'll start publishing people's books." And they did. And they published good stuff by excellent authors. But how, may I ask, is this different than publishing your own book?

I know they didn't publish their own books; that's not what I'm saying. They published other people's books. But it was them doing the publishing, not some faceless corporation with a decaying old man at the helm. And believe me, they didn't have fleets of editors or artists at their beck and call: they had to arrange for all of those services on their own.

It's weird: just because they called their enterprises "publishing houses" they gained instant credibility. One of the guys was able to consistently place ads in Publisher's Weekly for his clients. Try doing that for your latest greatest self-pubbed novel. I don't know for certain, but something tells me you'd get laughed off the phone. But what gets me is that these guys had to hustle for their clients, they had to track down cover artists, get layout work done, promote the books to industry magazines, beg book store managers to give them space on an end cap to display the books. If you looked close, their whole operations were held together with balsa wood and chewing gum.

I say again: how is this any different than someone self-pubbing their own books?

One of these guys had zero industry experience before starting his company. He'd never been an editor, never been a literary agent, wasn't bedding down with the scioness of some publishing house. He just worked his butt off and published a bunch of books that looked beautiful and were credits to their authors.

To me, this exposes the thin line between the perceived prestige of being published by a full-blown legacy publisher and just doing it yourself, because I saw these guys scrambling and working two to three other jobs just to support their ventures, and how there was no magic involved. I concede: if you go with a house, you might get an advance. You might get good editing done. You won't have to shell out your own money for anything, and, especially if you go with a small outfit, you'll get one person doing the publicity, the editing, the layout, etc. so you'll have instant accountability.

But to me, these guys were basically self-publishers of other people's work. Ok, granted they didn't have the industry heft of a St. Martin's or a Harper. But their books looked just as pretty, and they had just as good of blurbs printed on the back covers. And I'm telling you, the books they published were just as good if not better than 2/3 of the crap big publishers churn out each year.

All this is to say that as long as you work hard and make your book as good as it can possibly be, there is no shame whatsoever in self publishing. As I often caution in my blog posts, I've never published either via legacy publishers or via self-publishing, but I'm writing a book now that I'm probably going to self-publish, so a lot of what I write is to motivate myself as much as it is to help others.

Bottom line: while you might catch a few guffaws when telling people you're a self-published author, as long as your book is good, you should be able to confidently look them in the eyes and say, "You think my stuff sucks? Whatever. Buy a copy and see for yourself."

Indie Vs. Legacy Publishing Video

Here it is: indie publishing's effect on legacy publishing in one easy-to-follow video:

Indie Vs. Legacy Publishing Video

Here it is: indie publishing's effect on legacy publishing in one easy-to-follow video:

Blood Kindle

You've got to love it when an establishment figure panics. When they go full-tilt into defending something, whether it be a business model or a person that's clearly not up to snuff. Well, I read a hilarious/sad article by Bill Henderson today in Publisher's Weekly railing against e-readers and let me tell you, it's a doozy.

It seems it's beyond some people's capacity to handle the coming tide of digital books. Sure, I like libraries and book stores as much as the next guy (provided the book store is a mom and pop place where the books are piled willy-nilly all over the place, and the owner/cash register attendant doesn't look up from the obscure 17th-century Prussian romance he's reading to ring up my order). But come on. Who has time to go to a book store anymore?

And anyway, I'm tired of hearing about all the great authors who were never published. The digital format allows all authors to upload their books FOR FREE and send them out into the ether to find an audience. So no more excuses for those humble, starving artist who were brilliant but never made it through the big mean publishing house juggernaut. Time to put up or shut up.

The best part of this screed is how the guy says e-readers are much worse for the environment than books are. Ok, I concede that e-readers don't have a positive impact on the environment. It's not like manufacturing a Nook will repopulate a dead lake in Michigan. But let's remember, we're in the infant stages of this e-revolution. E-readers will become more and more efficient going forward, with their manufacturers trying to leave an ever lighter carbon footprint with each iteration, so that someday we will get to a point where we will be able to read any book ever written on a device that does not harm the environment one iota.

And what kind of a fear-mongerer and moral Puritan tries to scare people away from buying e-readers because they might vaguely be contributing to strife in war-torn Africa? Examples, please. I'm pretty sure Kindles are not blood diamonds. I mean: are you serious? And then he equates the possible future disappearance of libraries with a "digital book burning," evoking scenes straight out of the Holocaust and Stalin's Russia???

This all (uncomfortably) reminds me of those bludgeoning TV ads from a few years ago where a kid looks at a bag of weed he just bought. He has a self-satisfied look on his face until he looks up and--surprise!--he finds that all the ghosts of the people who died in drug gang activity surrounding that dime bag have come back to haunt him. It's soooo moralistic it makes me wince.

And what on earth do e-book readers have to do with lessening our attention span? Won't people be uploading philosophical tracts along with the latest book in the Twilight series? Henderson conflates Twitter and e-readers here, weirdly over-extending his argument.

Books--and trust me, I loves me some books--are a static form. They will not evolve anymore. They are the Loch Ness monster lampooned at the bottom of some godforsaken Scottish lake. Ok? Let's try to stay positive about this: e-books are a great way for people to practice the craft they love while making money at it. And the technology will catch up with green demands. Anyway, that's what I believe.

Blood Kindle

You've got to love it when an establishment figure panics. When they go full-tilt into defending something, whether it be a business model or a person that's clearly not up to snuff. Well, I read a hilarious/sad article by Bill Henderson today in Publisher's Weekly railing against e-readers and let me tell you, it's a doozy.

It seems it's beyond some people's capacity to handle the coming tide of digital books. Sure, I like libraries and book stores as much as the next guy (provided the book store is a mom and pop place where the books are piled willy-nilly all over the place, and the owner/cash register attendant doesn't look up from the obscure 17th-century Prussian romance he's reading to ring up my order). But come on. Who has time to go to a book store anymore?

And anyway, I'm tired of hearing about all the great authors who were never published. The digital format allows all authors to upload their books FOR FREE and send them out into the ether to find an audience. So no more excuses for those humble, starving artist who were brilliant but never made it through the big mean publishing house juggernaut. Time to put up or shut up.

The best part of this screed is how the guy says e-readers are much worse for the environment than books are. Ok, I concede that e-readers don't have a positive impact on the environment. It's not like manufacturing a Nook will repopulate a dead lake in Michigan. But let's remember, we're in the infant stages of this e-revolution. E-readers will become more and more efficient going forward, with their manufacturers trying to leave an ever lighter carbon footprint with each iteration, so that someday we will get to a point where we will be able to read any book ever written on a device that does not harm the environment one iota.

And what kind of a fear-mongerer and moral Puritan tries to scare people away from buying e-readers because they might vaguely be contributing to strife in war-torn Africa? Examples, please. I'm pretty sure Kindles are not blood diamonds. I mean: are you serious? And then he equates the possible future disappearance of libraries with a "digital book burning," evoking scenes straight out of the Holocaust and Stalin's Russia???

This all (uncomfortably) reminds me of those bludgeoning TV ads from a few years ago where a kid looks at a bag of weed he just bought. He has a self-satisfied look on his face until he looks up and--surprise!--he finds that all the ghosts of the people who died in drug gang activity surrounding that dime bag have come back to haunt him. It's soooo moralistic it makes me wince.

And what on earth do e-book readers have to do with lessening our attention span? Won't people be uploading philosophical tracts along with the latest book in the Twilight series? Henderson conflates Twitter and e-readers here, weirdly over-extending his argument.

Books--and trust me, I loves me some books--are a static form. They will not evolve anymore. They are the Loch Ness monster lampooned at the bottom of some godforsaken Scottish lake. Ok? Let's try to stay positive about this: e-books are a great way for people to practice the craft they love while making money at it. And the technology will catch up with green demands. Anyway, that's what I believe.