Writer Beware Blogs!

Victoria Strauss -- Again, Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award

2008-11-14T09:52:00.004-05:00

You may have noticed a new look to the blog. We've been tired of the old green template for some time--plus, it wasn't so easy on the eyes. So we've upgraded to a new, more visually pleasing design--which also brings with it improved functionality, and nifty extras like the Followers display.

Via Publishers Lunch: Amazon.com and Penguin Group will sponsor a second Breakthrough Novel Award in 2009. (Hewlett-Packard, a co-sponsor of the previous award, will not return.) Here's the announcement on the Penguin website.

Once again, the winner will be published by Penguin, with an advance of $25,000, as long as he or she is willing to sign a non-negotiable publishing contract within 7 days of receiving notification of his/her win. Finalists receive an expense-paid trip to Seattle for the awards ceremony, and semi-finalists receive a review from PW (all prizes are described here). As before, only Amazon customers will be allowed to post reviews of contestants' entries.

There are some procedural changes, presumably as a result of issues encountered during last year's contest. Up to 10,000 entries will be allowed (double last year's 5,000), with 2,000 of these selected by "expert reviewers from Amazon" based on their pitch statements (a 300-word summary of the book--kind of like a query letter on steroids). 500 will be chosen as quarter-finalists by "Amazon Editors and Amazon Vine Reviewers" based on a review of 3,000-5,000 word excerpts (last year, the contest went directly to semi-finals, with 1,000 semi-finalists chosen). The quarter-finalists' excerpts will be displayed on Amazon for review and comment, and reviewed by PW (half the number of reviews PW provided last year).

Penguin editors will then winnow the quarter-finalists down to 100 semi-finalists, of which 3 will be selected as finalists (last year, there were 10 finalists). Finalists will receive detailed reviews of their manuscripts from an expert panel of authors, editors, and agents. Popular vote will determine the winner. (For full info, see the contest FAQ, and also the official contest rules).

I blogged twice about the Award last October. My reservations about people's choice-style awards for literature remain unchanged, with the additional proviso that entrants can expect to be spammed by Amazon with come-ons for its CreateSpace self-publishing service (to enter, you must first register with CreateSpace). That said, this is a solid competition with a worthwhile prize--and possible fringe benefits, as Penguin offered contracts not just to last year's winner, but to four of the finalists. Also, unlike many contests, the Breakthrough Novel Award doesn't tie your manuscript up in exclusive submission for a huge amount of time.

In fact, those possible fringe benefits may be the main reason to enter the contest. Last year's winner, Bill Loehfelm, was announced in early April, and his book was rushed to market, coming out just four months later, in August. A rush to publication isn't such a great thing; as frustrated as writers sometimes get with the year or more that elapses between contract signing and publication, there are good reasons for that long lead time. For the four finalists, whose books are due in 2009 and 2010, Penguin allowed a more normal timeline, making possible not just a more leisurely editing process, but also the important pre-book marketing that plays such a vital role in books' success. In my opinion, they got the better deal.

Victoria Strauss -- Some Good Reading

2008-11-11T00:42:00.001-05:00

A midweek post to draw attention to some interesting blog posts I've read recently.

Impressed with the courtesy and promptness of that brand-new agent with no publishing industry experience? Don't be. Stacia Kane/December Quinn on how it's not about being nice.

Trying to convince yourself that fee-charging publisher isn't really a vanity press because it pays royalties, and only reputable publishers pay royalties? Thinking it's selective because it doesn't accept absolutely everything that's submitted to it? Think again. Marian Perera at Flights of Fantasy reveals five misconceptions about vanity presses.

Did the publisher that just asked you for several thousand dollars to publish your book assure you that paying to publish is a sign of your faith your own work? Or that paying to publish is the way many first-time authors get started? Be skeptical. Marian Perera again, on the many ways fee-charging publishers justify their upfront fees.

Frustrated with the agent search? Considering going it alone? Before you decide, read Editorial Ass on why you should never submit unagented to publishing companies. (Just one caveat: She's talking about the Big Guys here, as well as the larger independents. For smaller independents, it may be perfectly feasible to approach directly.)

Curious about how bookstores decide which books to order? From Jane Smith's How Publishing Really Works blog, a short explanation of the book-stocking policies of UK chain bookseller Waterstone's, from former Waterstone's staffer Sally Zigmond.

Thinking about parlaying your blog to writing fame and fortune? Via Galleycat: only two percent of bloggers earn a living from their blogs. More from Technorati's State of the Blogosphere 2008 report, and how Writer Beware Blogs! compares:

- Median annual revenue among bloggers surveyed was $200 (revenue for the Writer Beware blog: $0).
- As tiny as bloggers' median annual revenue is, men STILL make more than women (grrr).
- The majority of bloggers have advertising of some sort on their blogs (to avoid any possible conflict of interest issues, the WB blog does not host ads or accept ad revenue).
- More than 133 million blogs have been established since 2002 (yikes).
- Only 5% of these (or 7.4 million) were updated in the past 120 days (the WB blog updates at least weekly, and often twice a week).
- 59% of bloggers have been blogging for more than two years (the WB blog started in September 2005, so it's just over three years for us).
- Half of all active blogs attract more than 1,000 monthly visitors (average monthly visits for the WB blog: 15,800--which sounds more impressive than it is, because only about a quarter of those visitors stick around to read).
- 57% of US bloggers are male; in Europe and Asia they're 73% (being a natural contrarian, I love it when I don't fit the stats).
- More women than men have personal blogs; more men than women have professional blogs (yay, bucking the stats again: neither Ann nor I have personal blogs; our only blogging is professional).
- One in four bloggers spends ten or more hours blogging per week (I probably average five or six hours, including research).

Victoria Strauss -- Zimbo Books Fiction Competition

2008-11-07T09:22:00.002-05:00

Have you recently received an email from Zimbo Books about a new, big-money literary contest? If so, you aren't alone. This company appears to be engaging in a sizeable spam campaign. I've gotten a number of questions, and there's discussion in many writers' forums. Zimbo even spammed me--at my Writer Beware email address, no less.

According to the email announcement,

Zimbo Books is pleased to announce the Zimbo Books Fiction Competition 2008 commemorating the launch of Zimbo Books. This exciting competition as described in the competition rules has 2 major benefits:

* A prize pool of USD $100,000 with a first prize of USD $80,000.

* The next four runners up get USD $5,000 each.

* One year's subscription for all Authors to sell their books online via Zimbo Books (value USD $45).

The official contest rules reveal that the competition is for unpublished book-length manuscripts of between 50,000 and 300,000 (!) words. Entries must be accompanied by a synopsis of no more than 750 words. Zimbo takes no rights to submitted manuscripts--though by entering, you grant it the right to list and sell your book on the Zimbo website (more about that below). The entry deadline is April 21, 2009, so there's plenty of time to enter. And get this--if you refer another writer to the contest, you can get a referral fee of $15.

Wouldn't it be nice to win $80,000? Or $5,000? Or even net a few $15 referral fees? I could use some extra cash, and I'm sure you could too. But wait. It's not that simple. There are some factors to consider first.

- The entry fee is a whopping $85. Contest fees don't automatically tag a contest as disreputable, but for a book contest (as opposed to a screenplay contest, where entrance fees tend to be high) $85 is way too much. (For instance, the Atlantic Writing Competition, sponsored by the Writers Federation of Nova Scotia, charges $25. The San Diego Book Awards Association charges $15. There are many others.)

Zimbo reserves the right to reject entries "that it deems, in its sole discretion, to be inappropraite [sic], for any reason whatsoever", in which case your fee will not be refunded. Zimbo also reserves the right to cancel the competition "in the event an insufficient number of entries are received"--in which case, you get a refund of $40 (the difference between the entry fee and Zimbo's regular $45 "publishing" service). There are no details on what would constitute "an insufficient number."

- By its own admission, Zimbo is not a publisher. "Zimbo just allows you to sell your books. We are not publishers." (While it's nice of them to clarify, alert writers may already have inferred this from the number of typos and other errors on the Zimbo website). A literary contest conducted by an organization unrelated to publishing or book selling is not likely to provide a step up in your writing career, even if you win.

So what is Zimbo, if it's not a publisher? An ecommerce website "where products and members interact." If this reminds you a bit of eBay, that may not be an accident: Zimbo's parent company, Technocash Pty Ltd., is "a licensed financial institution providing payment solutions" that "presently provides Australian collection services for hundreds of non-Australian eBay sellers." In addition to selling other products, you can sell your book by paying Zimbo $45, for which it will turn your ms. into a pdf file and list it for sale.

- Speaking of which, just by entering the contest, you agree to let Zimbo list and sell your manuscript from its site for one year. Here's Zimbo's explanation of why this is peachy super-keen:

How does Zimbo Books compare to having a book published?

Zimbo Books is much better. For a start you don’t need a publisher to start selling If you are one of the very few lucky authors to get your book published, the time taken to get the book to market is often more than a year. No waiting with Zimbo Books. Plus you get much more money with Zimbo Books for each sale. Many authors get a royalty of 10% paid by the publishers. But it is 10% of the wholesale price not the retail price. For example, if the book has a retail price of $30, it could have a wholesale price of $15 and the 10% royalty is $1.50 – compared to Zimbo with a net sale amount of $7.

Oy. If this inaccuracy-laden rationale doesn't turn you off, consider whether you really want an uncorrected pdf file of your book out there on the Internet. Consider whether you want to possibly put your first publication rights in jeopardy by agreeing to what will almost certainly be perceived by agents and editors as cut-rate self-publishing. Consider that, if you do manage to place your book with an agent or publisher before the year is up, they will probably want you off the Zimbo site--but there's no provision that I could find to allow you to cancel your Zimbo listing before the year is up. Oh, and the listing is automatically renewable. So unless you do cancel, it won't expire.

- So far, a full list of who will be judging the contest is not available. A contest's prestige rests in part on the qualifications of its judges--which you can't assess if you don't know who they are. A short bio of one judge has recently been posted, but while this gentleman is admirably accomplished in his own field, it's unclear how he is qualified judge a literary contest.

- Contest entrants must agree to parent company Technocash's privacy policy, which allows Technocash to disclose personal information to third parties., "Sometimes we provide personal information about customers to organisations outside of Technocash. Generally this will only occur when the organisation or other entity helps us with our business. For example: outsourced service providers including mailing houses or telemarketing agencies; authorised representatives of Technocash; other financial institutions; credit reporting agencies; and our accountants, auditors or lawyers." Since the contest entry form requires contestants to provide not just their email addresses, but their phone numbers and street addresses, I suspect that entrants should be prepared for an increase in spam, junk phone calls, and/or junk snail mail.

Bottom line, in my opinion: Zimbo's competition is not a real literary contest, but a moneymaking venture (the $85 entry fee) in support of another moneymaking venture (I'm guessing that the contest is intended both to bulk up Zimbo's inventory of electronic books, and to promote its $45 "publishing" service). Even if that weren't the case, the enforced publication provision should be enough to make careful writers think twice.

Oh, and that fat prize money? It's listed in US dollars, but according to the fine print, "As Zimbo Books is based in Australia all credit/debit card transaction [sic] are processed in the AUD equivalent."

Victoria Strauss -- Ding Dong, BookWise is Dead

2008-11-04T12:27:00.002-05:00

Via Lee Goldberg--multi-level marketing scheme Bookwise, which I blogged about in 2006, is no more. BookWise applied the Amway principle to bookselling, encouraging its Associates not just to sell the books they bought from the company, but to sign up other Associates and receive a percentage of their income.

An announcement on the BookWise website says only that "BookWise & Company has merged with iLearningGlobal and is no longer in business." iLearningGlobal, according to its website (which doesn't mention BookWise or the merger), is a "mentoring community" that "has brought together the top trainers and speakers in all areas of self development, personal improvement, business training, life skills, tax and financial strategies, and much more."

If you're puzzled by exactly how iLearningGlobal, with its focus on audio, video, e-books, webcasts, and other aural and visual media, dovetails with BookWise, a MLM scheme focusing on printed books, don't fret--you just need to look a little deeper. Like BookWise, iLearningGlobal is an MLM scheme, founded by MLM guru Brian Tracy. Over August and September 2008, BookWise Associates have been transforming themselves into iLearningGlobal Marketers. For instance, this happy former BookWise Associate. And this one. And here's an example of the iLearningGlobal sales pitch from yet another one.

In my original post on BookWise, I got some flack from BookWise loyalists for saying this:

"Despite BookWise's noble mission statement (The Mission of BookWise & Company is to increase literacy, reading and access to great books through neighbor-to-neighbor book selling. We champion the spirit of the corner bookstore and embrace the values of the independent bookseller with a passion for great literature and the personal connection with friends who love to read), it's not hard to see that the main incentive for those who join the club won't be books, but the promise of cash. That's the lure of multilevel marketing schemes: not the product, but the scheme itself, and the opportunity to sell it to others."

Gee. Ya think?

Not all of BookWise is gone. In early 2008, it branched out into vanity publishing with WriteWise, an expensive ($6,995) publishing and "mentoring" program that paid fat commissions to BookWise Associates who got writers to sign up. WriteWise appears to have survived the merger.

Just for kicks, I took advantage of the free download offered on the WriteWise website: 5 Secrets Every Author Needs to Know. I mean, I've published a few books, right? But being an author is a lifetime learning experience, and I could always use a few pointers. There are indeed five secrets, each one of which includes the words "make millions" or "make money." (For instance, Secret #5: "Hire Someone to Write Your Information Product, so You Make Millions." Gosh, I wish I'd thought of that.) The article, authored by Richard G. Allen (a former BookWise board member) finishes with a pitch for WriteWise:

If YES is your final answer to these three simple questions, then you have pre-qualified yourself for accepting my offer and joining WriteWise--destined to be rewarded with:

- A bestselling book.
- Millions of dollars.
- Many friends and followers (those with whom you share your information).
- A life you love each and every day.
- A world made better because of you.

I am giving you the most effective way from just wanting to be an Information Millionaire to Being One!

Ugh. I've got to go take a shower now.

Victoria Strauss -- Contest Alert: Mirage Books

2008-10-31T06:39:00.000-05:00

India-based Mirage Books, which describes itself as "a publishing house dedicated to promote writers across the globe," has been advertising a short story contest on its website.

Red flags abound. The website is poorly written, suggesting to me that English is not the writer's first language. Paid editing services are offered--a clear conflict of interest for a publisher. There's much verbiage about how the horrid old hidebound big publishing world hates new authors and won't give them a chance (completely false, and often a marker for an amateur publisher). To date, the company appears to have published just two books--one by Nikhil Khanna, to whom Mirage's URL is registered, the other by Huned Contractor (here's his profile on Writers Net), whose name appears on Mirage's correspondence under the title of "Editor."

I suspect a self-publishing endeavor that is trying to expand.

From the perspective of this post, the biggest red flag is the fact that the contest has no official rules or guidelines. Entrants thus have no way to know what they're getting into--not even what they will win. Writers savvy enough to Google Mirage Books may happen on a press release like this one, in which it's revealed that winners will be published in an "experimental" anthology called Break the Rules--but if you're thinking of entering a contest, you shouldn't have to go searching the Internet in order to figure out what the prize is.

Unfortunately, the contest has already closed, so it's too late to advise writers to be cautious about entering. Mirage is currently sending out notifications to the winners, however--and in my opinion there's good reason to be cautious about accepting the prize.

For one thing, it's something of a booby prize. If you're a winner, your story will be published along with a bio and photo, but according to the notifications, "Apart from this recognition, there are no other prizes or any monetary remuneration whatsoever because the entire objective has been to promote writing talent." So Mirage gets to sell the book (largely, I would guess, to you and your friends), but you don't get squat. You do keep your copyright. Lucky you.

Mirage's notifications offer no information about such important issues as what rights you'll have to grant and for how long, though they do promise "a short writer's agreement to ensure that the story is original and not plagiarized from any source." However, there's a catch.

[B]efore we get on to the next step, we would like you to furnish some details which will enable us to release your story for publishing. Therefore, kindly email us your:

1. Full Name
2. Residential Address
3. Date Of Birth
4. Age
5. A Short Bio Of Not More Than 50 Words
6. A High Resolution Photograph
7. A Scanned Copy Of Your Driving License Or Passport Or Voter's Card As Identity Proof

I don't think I need to point out the inadvisability of providing item #7.

The book will be published in India. I'm not familiar with the laws there, but even so, I can't think of any reason why Mirage would need "Identity Proof" of any kind from its authors, especially given that it won't be paying anyone. Some of the writers who've contacted me fear the potential for identity theft, but frankly, I think it's more likely that this is just another sign of Mirage's lack of cluefulness.

Nevertheless, good sense would seem to indicate that the winners (there are 50 of them) should decline to share this information. If refusal puts them out of the running for publication...well, given all the other red flags that are present here, that might not be such a bad thing.

Victoria Strauss -- Authors Guild Settles With Google

2008-10-28T09:44:00.004-05:00

The Authors Guild, the AAP, and several large publishers have reached a $125 million settlement with Google regarding library participation in Google's Book Search project. The settlement will allow Google to continue to expand its ambitious program of digitizing millions of books and making them searchable online, while preserving the rights of copyright holders.

From an email I received today:

The Guild had sued Google in September 2005, after Google struck deals with major university libraries to scan and copy millions of books in their collections. Many of these were older books in the public domain, but millions of others were still under copyright protection. Nick Taylor, then the president of the Guild, saw Google’s scanning as “a plain and brazen violation of copyright law.” Google countered that its digitizing of these books represented a “fair use” of the material.

Our proposal to Google back in May 2006 was simple: while we don’t approve of your unauthorized scanning of our books and displaying snippets for profit, if you’re willing to do something far more ambitious and useful, and you’re willing to cut authors in for their fair share, then it would be our pleasure to work with you.

We’re happy to report that our proposal found a receptive audience at Google and at Association of American Publishers and the several publishing houses that had filed a separate lawsuit in October 2005 against Google. Reaching final agreement turned out to be not so simple, but today, after nearly two and a half years of negotiations, we’re joining with Google and the AAP and those publishers to announce the settlement of Authors Guild v. Google.

The settlement, which must be approved by a federal judge before it takes effect, includes money for now and the prospect of money for later. There’ll be at least $45 million for authors and publishers whose in-copyright books and other copyrighted texts have been scanned without permission. If your book was scanned and you own all the rights, you’ll get a small share of this, at least $60, depending on how many rightsholders file claims.

Far more interesting for most of us –- and the ambitious part of our proposal -- is the prospect for future revenues. Rightsholders will receive a share of revenues from institutional subscriptions to the collection of books made available through Google Book Search under the settlement, as well as from sales of online consumer access to the books. They will also be paid for printouts at public libraries, as well as for other uses.

Payments will flow through a new entity called the Book Rights Registry, controlled by a board of writers and publishers. The settlement must be approved by the US District Court before it becomes final.

Authors Guild v. Google Settlement Resources Page

Official Press Release

Victoria Strauss -- Writers' Myths: Giving Back Your Advance

2008-10-26T11:03:00.004-05:00

Like any alternate universe, the writing community has spawned its own mythology. Ann and I have covered a few of these myths in this blog and on the Writer Beware website: the notion that you have to know someone in order to get published, the fear that agents and editors can blacklist writers, the conviction that "just getting it out there" (via self-publishing, for instance) is enough to jump-start a career, the idea that getting published is some kind of crapshoot, the many fallacies about copyright.

Such myths are not only incredibly persistent, resisting both logic and rebuttal, they can also be pernicious, causing writers to behave in ways contrary to their own best interest. For instance, the myth that "any agent is better than no agent" throws thousands of writers into the arms of amateur literary agents, who can damage careers as much as or even more than scam agents can.

The myth that's the subject of this post is extremely common, and it goes like this: Writers who receive advances from their publishers are required to pay them back if their books don't generate enough sales to earn out.* In some versions of this myth, the author only has to pay back the difference between the advance and actual royalties earned; in others, the entire advance is forfeit, no matter how much has been recouped. Either way, this is completely false.

An advance is a good-faith payment from a publisher to an author. Not only does it express the publisher's sales expectations for the book (since advances are often based on what the publisher projects the book will earn over the first year of publication, when most books make the bulk of their sales), it's a signal that the publisher is willing to put its money where its mouth is--to assume the financial risk of publication, and put cash and effort behind the production, distribution, and marketing of the book. This is why so many writers consider an advance to be a minimum standard of publisher professionalism.

Of course, an advance is also a gamble by the publisher that the book will sell to expectations. If the gamble doesn't pay off, the author won’t receive any additional royalty payments--but he or she will not have to return any portion of the advance. (The publisher won’t necessarily lose any money, either; it’s possible for a book to make a profit even if it doesn't earn out). In other words, no matter how poorly your book sells, you will not have to give back your advance.

Are there any circumstances in which a writer does have to return an advance? Yes. But these are very specific, and they don't occur very often.

Circumstance #1: If the publisher decides a manuscript is unacceptable or unpublishable after it has been turned in. Usually the author is given a chance to revise the manuscript. If the author can't or won't, or if s/he does revise and the publisher still feels the manuscript is unacceptable, the author will be liable for any advance amounts that have been received (usually not the entire advance, since advances are paid in installments). Sometimes the money will be due immediately. But often it will be due only if the author sells the manuscript to another publisher.

Here's sample language, from one of my publishing contracts:

If the Author has made delivery of a complete manuscript on the subject matter and within the word length as agreed and within the time limits defined above, but the Publisher determines that the manuscript is unsatisfactory as submitted or as revised pursuant to the Publisher's request for changes...the Publisher may terminate this Agreement and the Author shall thereafter be free to arrange for publication by another publisher. In such event, the Author or the Author's duly authorized representative agrees to make every effort to sell the Work elsewhere and to pay the Publisher any sums advanced or earned...The Author's obligation to make payment under this paragraph shall be limited to the amounts paid to the Author under this Agreement.

In another of my contracts, there's similar wording, qualified by the following:

If within five years from the date of the Publisher's notice [that the manuscript is unacceptable] the Author has not made arrangements for the publication of such Work by another publisher...the Author shall have no further obligation to the Publisher with respect to such Work.

So if I don't re-sell within five years, I don't have to pay anything back at all.

Circumstance #2: If the author fails to deliver the manuscript. There is often quite a bit of wiggle room here. If you can't make your deadline, it's possible to get an extension(s), and there are plenty of examples of late author deliveries where the publisher chose to wait for an extremely overdue book rather than cut the author loose and demand reimbursement. Of course, sometimes the publisher loses patience, and a lawsuit may ensue--though unless you're a celebrity, you probably don't have to worry about this.

Sample language, from one of my contracts:

If the author fails to deliver a complete and final manuscript...on or before the date and within the word length as agreed, the Publisher...will have the option, exercisable at its sole discretion...to demand delivery...If by the end of ninety (90) days of the Publisher's written demand for delivery the Author has failed to deliver a complete manuscript...the Publisher will thenceforth, despite any subsequent delivery, have the right to recover from the Author any amounts which the Publisher may have advanced.

There you have it: the only two circumstances you are likely to encounter in which you will ever have to return an advance. Assuming, of course, that you sign up with a reputable publisher.

So why is the advance giveback such a widespread writers' myth? One reason, of course, is ignorance--many writers don't take time to learn about the publishing industry before starting to submit, so they don't recognize the myth's falsity when they encounter it, and perpetuate it by passing it on. Ditto for a pair of closely-related falsehoods: that advances are uncommon, and that new authors don’t typically get advances.

But a larger reason, I think, is that the myth is so often embraced by companies or individuals seeking to further an agenda: vanity publishers attempting to justify their fees by portraying commercial publishing in a negative light, or less-than-professional small presses trying to put a positive spin on their no-advance policies. Ignorantly perpetuated writer-to-writer, the myth is merely harmful; cynically put forward in order to mislead or deceive, it is downright immoral.

-----------------

* I probably don't need to explain this, but just in case: A publisher's advance is an advance on the royalties a book is projected to earn. No additional royalty payments are due until book sales have generated enough royalties to recoup the advance. This is known as "earning out."

Victoria Strauss -- Literary Agent Directories

2008-10-17T12:30:00.000-05:00

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a writer in possession of an unpublished manuscript, must be in want of an agent.

This is not news, I know. But because it is a universal truth, there's never any shortage of Wonderful New Ideas or Nifty Innovative Tools designed (supposedly) to make the process of agent-hunting easier, or at least a bit less frustrating. Manuscript display sites and query and submission services have both held out the promise of bypassing the tedious research-and-submission process, the former by enticing agents to come to you rather than the other way around, the latter by letting you farm out the work to someone else, rather than doing it yourself. To date, neither has managed to become a viable alternative.

The latest agent-hunting "innovation" is the literary agent directory--an online compilation of literary agent listings with contact information, submission guidelines, what the agency is looking for, and often some info on clients and sales. The idea is somewhat similar to a print market guide--all the info in one place--with the added Internet benefits of searchability (many databases allow you to plug in your market or genre, and generate a list of agents who are interested in receiving submissions like yours) and linkage (to agency websites, for instance).

Some directories are just listings; some include extras, such as articles about writing and publishing, utilities to track your queries, editing or critique services, or even a submission service. A few allow you to post comments about your experience with an agency. Many directories are free, but some are fee-based, and others are a combination (the basic info is available for free, but if you pay for membership you get expanded listings).

Agent directories I'm aware of (there may well be others I haven't found) include, in alphabetical order:

1000 Literary Agents
AgentQuery
FirstWriter
LitMatch
QueryTracker
WordHustler
WritersNet

Agent directories can be a helpful and handy resource in your search for a reputable literary agent. But there are a number of things to take into account.

- Not all directories are equally careful about how they vet the agents they list. Most do a decent job of excluding the more notorious scammers, but nearly all include at least a few marginal or amateur agents, and some (FirstWriter and WritersNet) include many. Don't, therefore, assume that simply because an agent has a listing, he or she is reputable and/or successful.

- The directories can be a good starting point, but don't use them as your only source of information. Even the most comprehensive directory won't include all possible appropriate agents, and some may be missing a large number of them. There's also a surprising amount of variation from directory to directory. I did a number of sample searches, and for the same search, all the directories listed many of the same agents, but every directory listed agents another didn't, or listed different agents at the same agencies. Expand your agent search by using a print market guide, and identifying books similar to yours in subject, genre, tone, theme, etc., and trying to find out who agents them.

- Search results tend to reflect agents' expressed interests, not necessarily clients or sales. Just because an agent has an interest in receiving a particular genre doesn't mean that he or she can sell it. The ideal agent is one who has an actual track record of selling books like yours. Always do some extra research on agents you find in the directories (the best source is the agent's website, if s/he has one) to be sure the agent's track record is a good match for your manuscript.

- Did I mention that search results reflect agents' expressed interests? Unfortunately, the directories don't always list those interests correctly, or list them too broadly (for instance, failing to distinguish between agents who specialize in children's fantasy and those who specialize in fantasy for the adult market)--which means that your search results may include agents who aren't appropriate for you. Another good reason to do some extra research on any agent you find at an agent directory.

- Some agent directories provide extra services for a fee, such as critiquing or query tracking. But there's no reason ever to pay a fee to access the agent listings themselves (as at FirstWriter). The information provided by the directories is available elsewhere for free; the directories do you a favor by aggregating it in one place, but none of it is secret or proprietary.

So which databases do I recommend? For accuracy, depth of information, flexibility in searching, and general up-to-datenesss, you can't beat AgentQuery, in my opinion. I also think QueryTracker is also a solid information source.

Victoria Strauss -- BookRix: Another Brand New Idea That Isn't

2008-10-10T14:52:00.001-05:00

A few days ago, I got a spam--er, a targeted media announcement from a company called BookRix. Founded in Germany and launched last week in the USA, BookRix joins a growing number of writing-related social media websites--EditRed, ABCTales, Booksie, GoodReads, and HarperCollins's slush pile experiment, Authonomy, to name just a few.

Using a proprietary platform called ViewRix, BookRix lets aspiring authors upload their stories or manuscripts, format them into "web books" (these look more or less like scans of printed books, and mimic the turning of pages), share them with the BookRix community, and get feedback from other members. Books can also be shared with friends and family, or embedded on blogs or other social networking websites. In addition to members' writing, BookRix's library includes public domain works (Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, Louisa May Alcott), presumably in a bid to attract readers as well as authors. If you hover your cursor over a book, you can see how many times it has been "read" (i.e., how many times someone has clicked on the cover image).

BookRix claims that it's "the first book community where anyone can place their own books, short stories, poems etc. to be promoted on the web," which makes me wonder how much time its staff have spent on the Internet lately. It is also, either naively or deceptively, promoting itself as a way for aspiring writers to launch their careers in a viral manner, a la YouTube. According to its press release, "The traditional publishing world can be challenging to break into and BookRix.com offers aspiring authors a platform to promote themselves and help them begin a career in writing...BookRix.com gives writers the same possibilities that musicians found on MySpace photographers discovered on Flickr and online video creators found on YouTube."

Writers, do I need to elaborate--again--on why posting your writing online at a manuscript display or peer critique website is unlikely to help you build a platform? Sites like BookRix are very attractive to writers--but not so much to readers, who don't particularly want to wade through a mass of unvetted manuscripts in search of something good to read. The likelihood that you'll be "discovered" as a result of uploading your book to BookRix is miniscule. A few hundred clicks on your "web book" does not an audience make. Agents and editors will not be impressed.

BookRix's Terms and Conditions, which appear to have been poorly translated from the original German, are somewhat challenging to decipher. For instance, this--

"Contents which are uploaded, revised and/or published by Users on BookRix are not and do not become Contents of the Provider. Moreover, the Provider does not adopt Contents as its own which have been uploaded, revised and/or published by Users. The preceding sentences also apply in case Contents are formatted as an electronic book by means of the web-application which is available on BookRix. The preceding sentences also apply with respect to communication between Users and comments which Users make with respect to Contents."

--which I take to mean that BookRix does not claim users' copyrights, either for content uploaded to the site or for comments made on the site. Overall, though, the Terms and Conditions don't look too bad. Users do need to be aware of Clause 23, which obliges them to pay $500 (I'm assuming it's $500; the amount is given but the currency isn't defined) "for any conduct constituting a wilful or negligent breach of any of the prohibitions set out in section 22 of these GTC above" and of Clause 25, which entitles BookRix to place targeted ads based on users' personal data on their profile and book pages. But there don't seem to be any major "gotchas" lurking in the fine print.

BookRix is free. As with other writing-related social media sites, writers might enjoy the community and benefit from the comments they receive. But if you choose to use a site like this, do it for fun or for feedback. Don't do it in the expectation that it will give you a toehold on a writing career.

Victoria Strauss -- Blu Phier Publishing: Another Contract "Gotcha"

2008-10-03T10:20:00.005-05:00

Some of you may be aware of the issues surrounding yet another troubled small publisher, Blu Phier Publishing.

It's a familiar story: A light bulb goes off over the head of someone with an interest in writing/publishing, but no professional experience in either. He starts a publishing company. Because he doesn't have the proper knowledge base, and can't be bothered to spend time acquiring it, he crafts a nonstandard contract (here's a brief analysis by me), provides inadequate editing and copy editing, cannot maintain professional design or production standards, and, unable to distribute or market in any meaningful fashion, puts the onus of making sales on his authors. The upshot: The publisher gets into logistical and financial trouble. Delays occur. Monies due aren't paid. Excuses, recriminations, and abrupt changes in policy ensue. The publisher limps on for a while. Eventually it goes belly up, with or without returning its authors' rights.

Well, that last bit, the belly up part, hasn't happened yet with Blu Phier. But the rest of it has. The saga has been followed at Absolute Write, and on a number of blogs, including The Rusty Nail, ButterFludget, and Cussedness. If you don't want to take the time to peruse the considerable amount of material at those links, a glance at the Publisher's Corner page of Blu Phier's website will give you a sense of how it does business. A sample:

Q: Why does your company get the rights to an author's books and never release those rights?

Answer: When an author writes a book he/she creates something very precious to him/her and they become protective and possessive of it. In a larger publishing company they generate books by the thousands and all they see is numbers and marketability. In my company however I am as attached to the books as the authors. I often get excited at the release of a new book because my money and my efforts helped bring it to the public. Once I publish a book it becomes a part of Blu Phi'er family and I get very possessive over it.

All righty, then.

The most recent controversy involves royalty statements. Per The Rusty Nail, Blu Phier recently sent a mass royalty report email to its authors, in lieu of more conventional individual royalty statements (I'll just note the huge unprofessionalism of this, and move on). Sales figures for many of the books were followed by this statement: "No royalties paid until publisher is reimbursed for expenditures."

This apparently has been a surprise to at least some authors. It shouldn't have been.

Here's the Royalties clause in an early version of BPP's contract:

[Blu Phier Publishing] agrees to pay client a royalty of 30% of the cover price per book sold, 15% of the cover price for all books sold by a wholesale distributor who [sic] has been granted a 45% or more discount by BPP (after all funds expended by B.P.P. in the production of the book have been reimbursed).

It's not what you'd call crisp wording, but it does make clear that BPP intends to recoup its production costs from sales before paying royalties. In other words, the publisher keeps what should be authors' income. Plain and simple, this is back-end vanity publishing.

A few months later, in part as a result of criticism at Absolute Write, the contract was revamped, and the Royalties clause became much more murky (all errors courtesy of the original):

B.P.P. will pay The Author royalties based upon profits obtained from net sales as reported by the B.P.P's distributors as follows: 15% of all profits. B.P.P. will pay The Author royalties based upon profits obtained from net sales from B.P.P.'s own website as follows: 30% of all profits.

The word "profits" in a royalty clause is ALWAYS a warning sign. Too often, writers assume it's just another way of saying "net income." It's not. When a publisher pays you based on net income, it's paying you based on the actual money it receives for your book (usually, cover price less any discounts to wholesalers or retailers). When a publisher pays you based on profits, it's paying you based on the actual money it receives, less costs involved in publishing and marketing your book (often not detailed in the contract, so you have no idea of what will actually be deducted). At best, this lowers the amount of money on which your royalties are calculated. At worst, it allows the publisher to manipulate your royalty payments in whatever way it wishes--conceivably, down to zero.

The Royalties clause of BPP's amended contract doesn't define what "profits" means. However, moving down to the Statements and Payments clause, we find the following:

B.P.P. shall forward to The Author via email detailed monthly statements concerning all book sales made by B.P.P. B.P.P. shall also deliver to The Author via email a statement of the total cost connected with the publication of The Work, the total profit B.P.P. will obtain for the sale of each book, and the projected number of books needed to be sold for B.P.P. to recover all publication costs.

In other words, exactly as in the original contract, BPP intends to recoup publication costs before paying royalties. Either through craftiness or ignorance, BPP never actually says so straight out. But putting this clause together with the Royalties clause, it’s pretty clear what BPP means by “profit.”

The moral of this tale? Aside from the obvious (avoid amateur publishers), there are several.

First, royalties paid on profit is never a good thing to see in a publishing contract. Second, if your publisher wants to recoup its production costs out of what should be your royalty income, it's nothing more than back-end vanity publishing. Third, read your publishing contract carefully, and consider the meaning of every word. Fourth, contract clauses don't exist in separate vacuums: They have bearing on one another. Wording in one clause can substantially change the impact of wording in another, or clarify a previous clause whose wording is vague or ambiguous.

And finally, as always: Caveat writer. It is your responsibility to understand the contracts you sign--or, if you don't, to obtain advice from someone who does.

Victoria Strauss -- 5,000 Writers

2008-09-27T12:27:00.008-05:00

You may recently have seen an announcement, such as this one in the UK's Telegraph, about a group called YouWriteOn that is promising to publish 5,000 writers for free. If you've wondered what the deal is, you aren't alone.

A bit of background first. YouWriteOn is a UK-based writers' community. Similar to Authonomy, which I blogged about a couple of weeks back, YWO allows members to upload stories or book excerpts for reader critiques and ratings. Each month, the top-rated stories receive free critiques and feedback from a number of literary professionals who participate at the site (a list is here). These professionals also select six Book of the Year Award winners, who can be published for free via YouWriteOn's POD self-publishing service.

As a critique community, YWO seems to be helpful to its members. And, as with Authonomy, the chance for feedback from professional agents, editors, and writers is a terrific benefit. It's where YWO ventures into publication that things get a bit sticky.

YWO has backed away from its initial policy of automatically including POD publication in its Book of the Year Award (if a book is good enough to be selected by publishing professionals, putting it out via a self-publishing-style service might not be doing the author any favors). Writers are now offered the "opportunity" for publication, which they presumably can refuse. YWO has expanded its self-publishing endeavors, however, partnering with Legend Press, an independent UK publisher that also provides text-setting and layout services, to provide several print-on-demand packages. These range from fairly inexpensive to pretty pricey. Curiously, YWO's website doesn't seem to have a bookstore, or any other way to view its published books, but according to Amazon UK, it seems to have published just five to date.

YWO's new POD publishing initiative seems to be an effort to ramp up its self-publishing activities. It will publish for free the books of the first 5,000 writers who contact it by October 31, and have their books ready for order by Christmas 2008. Books will sold through the YWO website, and can also be made available at Amazon and other online vendors--though authors who want that option will have to buy an ISBN number for £39.99. Royalties per copy sold will be 60%--"compared," YWO says, "to 12 to 15% royalties that authors usually receive through mainstream publishing."

So why would you not want to take advantage of this offer?

Well, for one thing, you could use Lulu.com's "Published By Lulu" distribution service to set your book up right now--with an ISBN number and online retail availability--at no cost. Not only would you not have to shell out for an ISBN, you'd be working with a proven DIY self-publishing service that has put out tens of thousands of books over the past five years, rather than with a part-time publisher that seems to have produced just five.

For another, YWO will publish your manuscript exactly as you submit it, and you will not have a chance to proof it. This may be fine if you're able to provide YWO with a PDF file of your manuscript, already laid out for print. Otherwise, say YWO's submission instructions (obtained by Writer Beware), "We will publish the manuscript that you send, so be sure you are happy with your grammar, layout, and spelling." As thousands of PublishAmerica authors already know, errors can be introduced in the PDF conversion process. Will YWO check to be sure this hasn't happened? Or will it simply print the books, mistakes and all?

For yet another...that 60% royalty. On the YWO website, it's touted as being ever so much higher than the mingy royalties paid by commercial publishers, and YWO manager Edward Smith makes the same point to the Bookseller: "Print-on-demand allows royalties to be about four times higher than mainstream publishing." Ah, but there's just one little detail missing from this rosy picture: what the 60% is calculated on. If you assumed cover price, guess again. According to YWO's publishing contract (also obtained by Writer Beware), royalties are paid on net, with net defined as "after printing costs." So your royalty will be a lot less than 60% of retail--or even, very possibly, 60% of wholesale. In fact, since the contract doesn't specify how much will be deducted for printing, you actually have no idea what your royalty will be.

And then there’s the promised by-Christmas publication date. 5,000 books is an insane number to crank out in just two or three months, even if all you do is download them, bang them into PDF format, and send them to the printer. Even AuthorHouse--which has a large staff and its own production facilities--doesn't come close to that kind of volume (in August 2008, according to Amazon.com, AuthorHouse's output was 519 books). So can YWO, which appears to be run by a single individual, really deliver? It's hard to see how. Possibly that's why the contract provides an out: "The Author accepts that [Christmas 2008] is an aim and not a guarantee as unpredictable events may affect the timeline." Uh huh.

(The contract--which otherwise isn't bad, taking only print rights on a nonexclusive basis and allowing the author to terminate at any time--has a number of disclaimers of this sort. On correspondence: "...to ensure that we publish all 5,000 Authors...we cannot enter into correspondence whatsoever beyond these instructions." Translation: OMG, 5,000 authors!! No way do we have time to answer questions or deal with problems! On manuscript submission: "The Author accepts that for Work submitted to different computers that text may not appear as it does on their computer and this may be reflected in the published book...This is because of how word processing systems work and we cannot be held responsible." Translation: Our conversion process may introduce errors. Sucks to be you.)

Last but not least, what’s the benefit? What possible advantage could writers derive from this quickie, bare-bones book production service? None, as far as I can see. According to YWO's website announcement, "Our aim is to give the opportunity to new writers to help create success for their books," and in a recent press release, Edward Smith declared that “We now intend to break the traditional mould of publishing itself.” But for all this talk of paradigm-shifting, the contract makes it clear that YWO will do no more than print the books: "There is no agreement on the part of the Publisher however to engage in or fund promotion or marketing expressed or implied by this contract for free publishing." If all you want is no-cost printing, you can get it from a far more established and experienced provider that isn't trying to crank out an unrealistically enormous number of books in an insanely inadequate amount of time. And if your goal is to be published, you won't achieve it here--and you will probably lose your first publication rights into the bargain. In other words, this is a freebie that could cost you.

So what's YWO's angle on all of this? Judging by the number of books its regular self-pub service has so far produced, it isn't exactly lighting up the world of POD self-publishing--so perhaps this is an attempt to make itself appear competitive with larger self-pub companies, and thus attract more clients. (Will it actually get as many as 5,000 manuscripts? Perhaps not, but I bet it gets a bunch.) Or maybe it's a publicity stunt to keep itself in the news. Or maybe it's an effort to make some cash, since authors will undoubtedly want to buy their own books, especially during the Christmas season. YWO will also make money on the ISBNs it sells. ISBNs cost £105.75 for a block of ten, which works out to £10.58 per ISBN. YWO is selling them for £39.99--a profit of just over £29 per book. Not a large amount--but those small numbers add up. (Thanks to Jane Smith for this info.)

In the quest for publication, it is rarely a good idea to act in haste. Rather than rushing to make the deadline, writers who are tempted by YWO's offer of free publishing are well advised to step back, take a deep breath, do some research, and engage in some sober consideration.

Victoria Strauss -- Self-Publishing Services and Defamation

2008-09-21T09:16:00.003-05:00

According to Nolo, libel is "An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media." Whoever publishes a defamatory statement is generally held to be as liable as the person who made the statement. So if you write a book and someone feels you have defamed them, they'll probably sue your publisher as well as you.

What about self-publishing services, though? Are they liable for the content of the books they print? Are they publishers, in any sense of the word? A recent lawsuit against Amazon's POD self-publishing service, BookSurge, put that question to the test.

The trouble began in 2003 when Mia Calcagni and Shana Sandler, both cheerleaders at a high school in Maine, had a falling out. Each complained to the school that the other was harassing her. When a swastika was spray-painted near Sandler's house in an apparent anti-semitic attack, Calcagni was convicted of criminal mischief.

Her parents, indignant, decided to write a tell-all book about the case--or rather, to hire a ghostwriter to write the book for them. (The book, unambiguously titled Help Us Get Mia, doesn't appear to be available any longer, and the website devoted to it has been removed, but you can still see its JacketFlap page, as well as a Google cache of the website--at least for a while.) When they weren't able to find a commercial publisher (is this starting to sound familiar?) they turned to BookSurge.

In February 2007, Sandler's parents sued for defamation, alleging, according to the original complaint, that the book contained "many false and defamatory statements." Included in the suit were not just Calcagni and the book's authors, but BookSurge. All defendants were alleged to be "negligent in publishing the false statements about Plaintiff."

The question before the court was whether BookSurge is a publisher in the traditional meaning of the word, and thus liable for the defamatory content of the books it publishes, or merely a distributor of content. The judge ultimately concluded the latter. Since BookSurge is "an independent company that transforms PDF documents into books with no editorial control and no communal process with the author" (i.e., it doesn't edit, fact-check, or review the material it prints), and furthermore "had no duty to inspect the work that came before it for defamation," BookSurge "neither knew nor had reason to know of the alleged defamation and therefore cannot be held liable for defamation."

Would the decision have survived, had the plaintiffs chosen to appeal? We'll never know. On September 4, the parties entered into a settlement, concluding the case.

Though the case has gotten surprisingly little press, several people have blogged about it, including Eric Goldman, Jeffrey D. Neuburger, and David Ardia of the Citizen Media Law Project. All seem to feel that the decision, in Goldman's words, "gives hope to these 'print-on-demand' vendors that they will...get some insulation from user-created problems even without statutory immunization." None mention an earlier defamation suit brought against POD vendor AuthorHouse, which resulted in an opposite decision.

In 2003, Gary D. Brock, former husband of successful romance author Rebecca Brandewyne, wrote a tell-all book about his ex-wife called Paperback Poison: the Romance Writer and the Hit Man. The book alleged, among other things, that Brandewyne had plagiarized her novels, abused drugs, and hired a hit man to kill Brock. Brock submitted the manuscript to iUniverse, which rejected it because of possible libelous content. He then went to AuthorHouse, which published it.

Brandewyne sued for defamation, and included AuthorHouse in the suit. The key issue, as in the Calcagni/Sandler case, was whether AuthorHouse was liable for the content of its books, in the same way that commercial publishers are liable. AuthorHouse argued that it merely printed the book after Brock signed its standard agreement, which states that AuthorHouse assumes no legal responsibility or liability "for any loss, damage, injury, or claim of any kind or character to any person or property." According to Publishers' Weekly, the judge "acknowledged that, based on its business model of dealing in volume, AuthorHouse 'cannot read every book cover to cover,' and that the company, to a certain extent, is entitled to hold authors responsible for the content of their work. But, [the judge] noted, 'The misconduct in this case is AuthorHouse’s failure to act when it had information that would have placed a prudent publisher on notice that the content of Brock’s book was harmful to the plaintiffs.'"

In 2006, a jury ordered AuthorHouse to pay Brandewyne a total of nearly $500,000: $230,000 in actual damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. Her parents, co-plaintiffs in the suit, were awarded $20,000 each.

Boiling all this down--the Calcari judge decided that BookSurge wasn't liable because of the nature of its business model, while the Brandewyne judge held that AuthorHouse was liable in spite of the nature of its business model. The Calcari judge also concluded that BookSurge was a glorified Kinko's ("an independent company that transforms PDF documents into books"), while the Brandewyne judge held AuthorHouse to the standards of "a prudent publisher." A key difference in these cases, of course, is the fact that Brock actually alerted AuthorHouse to the defamatory content of his book. If he hadn't, it's possible the court might have made a different decision. Nevertheless, these divergent outcomes suggest that the question of self-publishing services' liability for the content they print is far from resolved.

I'm certain we'll see the question tested further in the months and years to come.

(Note: The Calcari case isn't the only time BookSurge has been involved in litigation. Self-pub service Booklocker has brought suit against Amazon.com for requiring POD-based publishers and services to use BookSurge if they want Amazon to sell their books. Earlier, an unhappy author sued BookSurge for quality problems.)

Victoria Strauss -- I Love Your Blog Award

2008-09-16T16:41:00.003-05:00

The lovely ladies at Author 2 Author have nominated Writer Beware Blogs! for the I Love Your Blog Award.

There are rules involved. If you're nominated, you are supposed to:

1) Add the logo of the award to your blog.

2) Add a link to the person who awarded it to you (as shown above).

3) Nominate at least seven other blogs.

4) Add links to those blogs on your blog.

5) Leave a message for your nominees on their blogs.

I've fulfilled Rules 1 and 2, but after some thought, I'm not going to proceed farther. I suppose that awards like this can be classified as memes, but to me they seem very much like chain letters, in that they impose an obligation on the nominee and force the nominee to pass that obligation on to others. I could certainly think of seven great blogs to nominate--see the sidebar--but I'm not comfortable with asking them to do something just because I think they're cool.

So I'll just confine myself to saying thanks to Lisa, Kristina, Deena, Emily, and Kate for the nomination. I'm thrilled you guys like the blog, and I love the way you describe us--"like the writer's version of Law and Order." Hmmm. Now which L&O character do I want to be?

Victoria Strauss -- A Publishing Contract Clause to Beware

2008-09-12T09:32:00.004-05:00

Yesterday I got a question from a writer who'd been offered a publishing contract by a small publisher, and was concerned because the contract language seemed to indicate that the publisher intended to register copyright in its name, not the writer's.

I asked the writer to send me the contract, so I could look at the actual wording. Sure enough--a transfer of copyright was demanded. But there was a twist: a rights reversion clause. Once the contract terminated, the copyright and all rights would return to the author.

I don't know if it's a growing trend or just coincidence, but I've seen a fair number of contracts like this lately--most from micropresses, but some from sizeable independent publishers. I've touched on the temporary-transfer-of-copyright issue in a previous post about precautions for small press authors, but I think it's important enough to warrant a more detailed discussion.

Most writers know that unless you're entering into a work-for-hire agreement, it's not a good thing to transfer copyright (transferring copyright means that you give up ownership, not just of any rights in the work, but of the work itself). But what about just a temporary transfer? If you're going to get the copyright back someday, is it really so bad to surrender it for the duration of the publishing contract--especially if, as in the case of my questioner, the contract is time-limited?

In a word--yes. The fact that you've been promised you'll get your copyright back eventually doesn't change the fact that, while the publishing contract is in force, you no longer own it. This means that the new owner can alter, adapt, license, sell, or do anything else it wants to your work without consultation, compensation, or even credit to you. Because you gave up copyright, even if temporarily, you have no grounds to protest, and no recourse if the use the publisher makes of your work is offensive to you or changes the meaning or the quality of the work.

Of course, if the publisher is a micropress, the above is probably moot, since it’s unlikely that a micropress will be able actually to do anything with your work (such as selling subrights). I think it's also probable that in many cases, the micropresses don't fully understand the distinction between rights and copyright, and may not intend to take full ownership (the larger independents that include this kind of clause in their contracts have no such excuse). In some cases, the temporary--transfer-of-copyright contracts I've seen are so confused and contradictory that they might not even be enforceable.

There's another concern, however, and that's the fact that micropresses--which are often started up by people without any sort of publishing, editing, or marketing experience, and are run on a shoestring and a prayer--can have a very brief shelf life. Sometimes they go out of business without ever issuing any books. Sometimes they hold on for longer, but eventually are overwhelmed by bad management, money problems, or logistical difficulties. When that happens, they may do the right thing, dissolving contracts and returning rights. But they may also simply vanish into the night, leaving writers in limbo. If your publisher does that kind of bunk, and you've given it ownership of your copyright, you are, to put it mildly, not in a good position. It's not very likely that another publisher will be willing to take on a book whose rights aren't free and clear, even if the previous publisher no longer exists. Even self-publishing services require you to warrant that you are the copyright owner.

If this sounds like a hypothetical situation, it's not. I know of at least two temporary-grant-of-copyright publishers that have gone out of business in the past year. Both, as far as I know, returned copyrights to their authors. Other authors with other publishers--for instance, the writer I mentioned at the start of this post--may not be so lucky.

Assuming the publisher is not confused about the difference between rights and copyright, and really intends to take ownership, what advantage does it gain from a temporary, rather than a permanent, transfer of copyright? Possibly, the publisher wants to avoid being lumbered with copyrights whose value has been wrung dry, and intends to get rid of copyrights for which it no longer has a use. But another reason may be that the temporary grant makes copyright transfer more palatable to nervous writers. "Yes, you're giving us ownership of your copyright," the publisher can say. "But it's okay, because in the end we give it back!"

Don't be fooled. Whether permanent or temporary, a copyright transfer is a copyright transfer, and its presence in a publishing contract should always give writers pause.

Victoria Strauss -- Authonomy: Slushkiller or New Slush?

2008-09-05T09:15:00.001-05:00

Access. That's what the manuscript submission game is all about. Getting access to publishers. Getting access to literary agents. If you've been sending out your manuscript, you know what a grind it is. You've probably wished there were an easier way.

There's no shortage of services that offer to grant your wish, claiming to provide an alternative to the conventional submission process or to leapfrog you past the slush pile. Submission services promise to streamline the tedious process of research and querying. Manuscript display websites put snippets of your work online in hopes that agents and publishers will stop by and be impressed. Book coaches and literary consultancies offer to help you polish your submission materials, and to match you up with the right agent or publisher. All, of course, for an often-hefty fee.

Most services of this kind are directly sourced in the hopes and frustrations of the writing community, with entrepreneurs perceiving writers' desire for access, and marketing a service to (supposedly) provide it. Publishers see the problem also, however, and over the years have tried in various ways to address it--some successful, some not. A few examples:

- In 2000, Del Rey, a Random House imprint, launched its Digital Writing Workshop, which offered a peer critique system for unpublished writers, with participation by Del Rey editors and the possibility that top-rated books would be acquired for publication. (This workshop is now the Online Writing Workshop for SF, Fantasy, and Horror, and no longer associated with Del Rey. As far as I know, no books were ever acquired through the workshop.)

- In 2001, Time Warner (now Grand Central Publishing) unveiled iPublish, a project that promised to find new talent by allowing writers to submit unsolicited manuscripts, and using a reader rating system to pass promising works up the line to Warner editors. Launched in a blaze of optimism about the potential of ebooks (titles were to be published as ebooks first, moving to print only after they'd showed some momentum), iPublish foundered on the realities of the ebook market--and also, possibly, on the unpredictability of reader ratings. It closed its doors after publishing just a few titles. (It was also the subject of controversy for its author-unfriendly contract.)

- In 2006, Pan Macmillan created the Macmillan New Writing program, which does away with the "agented only" policy of most major publishers, and lets authors submit unsolicited manuscripts (the tradeoff for authors is no advances). Unlike iPublish, Macmillan New Writing is still alive and doing well.

- In 2007, Simon & Schuster collaborated with Gather.com and MediaPredict for three people's choice-style contests designed to discover promising new writers without the help of literary agents. (There's currently no indication that these contest initiatives are continuing.)

- Penguin had the same aim when it partnered with Amazon.com in 2008 for the Breakthrough Novel Award. (Will the Award will be more than a one-off? No word as yet.)

- Many major publishers run in-house competitions for unpublished writers, with a publishing contract as the prize--for instance, the Delacorte Yearling Contest, or the three contests for mystery writers conducted by St. Martin's Press.

Now comes the latest beat-the-slush endeavor: Authonomy from HarperCollins UK. Authonomy has been in private testing since last spring, and opened to the public in beta just this week. On Authonomy's FAQ page, Harper explains the project thus:

HarperCollins, like all publishers, is inundated with new manuscripts, and cannot hope to consider them all fairly. We don’t feel that our current, closed ‘slush pile’ system is fair to authors themselves – nor do we believe it is giving us the best chance of finding the brightest new talent. authonomy is a genuine attempt to find a better way to determine the books on our shelves – and it hands selective power to the readers who will ultimately be buying them.

Writers with book-length manuscripts can upload anywhere from 10,000 words to a complete manuscript for visitors to read and rate. Authonomy uses the number of visitor recommendations to rank the submissions; visitors are also ranked, based on how consistently they choose highly-rated books. Once a month, 10,000 words of the top five books are reviewed by what Authonomy describes as "an editorial board made up of international HarperCollins commissioning editors," which provides "feedback, comment and assistance." Authonomy also holds out the hope that agents and publishers will become part of the Authonomy talent-spotting community. And here's the real payoff: "HarperCollins hopes to find new, talented writers we can sign up for our traditional book publishing programmes – once we’re fully launched we’ll be reading the most popular manuscripts each month as part of this search."

Authonomy is free--for now. Its Terms and Conditions allow it to change that policy at any time. Otherwise, there are no "gotchas" that I can see.

Writers may wonder about the very large amount of material Authonomy members are encouraged to put online. Will posting big chunks of a work-in-progress, or even entire manuscripts, pose rights issues? Here's how Harper addresses that question:

We really see no particular reason why a manuscript that’s been showcased online should lose any of its value to an interested publisher.

Indeed, it’s central to the authonomy concept that a writer with a proven readership is often more valuable to a publisher, not less. Book companies now regularly snap up volumes from high profile bloggers and promising self-publishers with existing readerships. It’s a good thing to prove that you’ve the enthusiasm and the skills to help make your project a success.

While I don't buy into the notion that Authonomy can help writers build readership--a few hundred reader recommendations hardly constitutes a following--I agree that showcasing a manuscript online is probably not an issue, as long as it's not being promoted for sale. The notion that merely by posting your manuscript online you exhaust your first publishing rights dates back to the early days of the Internet, when the concept of electronic rights was brand-new and it wasn't clear what sort of competition they might present to print rights. I doubt that many editors these days would be greatly bothered. (A more relevant question, in my opinion, is how bothered they might be that you’d posted your manucript on a website sponsored by a rival publisher--especially if you’re currently submitting your manuscript elsewhere.)

So is Authonomy, at last, the new submission paradigm that unpublished writers dream of? Um, not really. Manuscript display, peer critique, reader rankings, potential publisher cherrypicking: Harper has put it all together very nicely, and given it a gloss of social networking, but really, there’s not very much that’s new here. Authonomy simply moves the slush pile online, employing a different vetting mechanism (readers rather than literary agents) but ultimately providing no greater access to editors--who, as in the offline world, only look at top-vetted manuscripts. It's certainly an interesting experiment, and I will be fascinated to see how it works out. But Authonomy doesn't change the basic equation for writers. It just provides an alternate field of struggle.

Victoria Strauss -- A Couple of Things

2008-08-29T10:17:00.000-05:00

AIRLEAF UPDATE

I've posted previously about Airleaf, a fraudulent vanity publisher that's currently the focus of a civil suit by the Indiana Attorney General. Recently, on her Airleaf Victims Blog, anti-scam crusader Bonnie Kaye reported that former Airleaf CEO Carl Lau is still out there looking for other people's money.

Lau's profile at GoBig Network (which, according to its FAQ, "allows professionals to connect with small businesses, entrepreneurs, investors, customers, vendors, employees and advisors") reveals that he is seeking investors for 2nd Century Films, which he describes as "A startup company with lots of projects to put into movies, Hollywood likes the screenplays and we have the right actors and directors to produce. Great investment for the long term or short term investor."

Hopefully none of those projects belong to Airleaf authors.

I'm reminded of vanity press scammer and fake literary agent Martha Ivery (currently doing time for fraud), who, after the FBI seized her records and she was forced to declare bankruptcy, attempted to keep going by dabbling in real estate scammery and in a scheme involving racehorses. Easier than getting a job, I guess.

AGENTS: LOCAL OR DISTANT?

Most of the questions Writer Beware receives focus on specific agents and publishers. But we also get a lot of general questions, and these tend to fall into certain patterns. One of the more common involves literary agent location. "I'm looking for an agent in my home town (or county, or state)," these questions begin, or "I live in Atlanta (or Phoenix or Des Moines), and I'm having trouble finding any agents located there. Can you help me?"

I suppose it's not unreasonable to assume that your literary agent, like your lawyer or your accountant, should be local to you. After all, this person will be handling your business. It would be good to be able to meet face to face, to be able to drop things off at the office, to have regular business lunches. Right?

Not exactly. In the often counterintuitive world of publishing, what's important is not that your agent be local to you, but that he or she be local to publishing (or to Hollywood, if you're a script writer). That way, s/he can have the business lunches that really count: with editors and producers. Your agent needs either to be in or near New York or Los Angeles, or to make regular business trips there. (Time was when a far-from-New-York-or-LA location was a warning sign, but that's no longer true; your agent can be anywhere, as long as s/he makes those business trips.)

Many--probably most--authors maintain long-distance relationships with their agents. This was true even in the antediluvian days of snail mail, before the Internet and email and faxes revolutionized the way we communicate. In your agent search, therefore, don't limit yourself by worrying about where your agent's office is. A competent literary agent can represent you effectively from any location.

Victoria Strauss -- AbandonedNovel.com

2008-08-22T13:12:00.006-05:00

I've been getting some questions about a new publisher called AbandonedNovel.com.

At AbandonedNovel.com, we're seeking the greatest stories never finished. We want the best beginnings to your unfinished novels to publish in a new book with other stories that never found their conclusion.

The book will be called Beginnings - A Novel, and will feature "ten selections of the best opening chapters of abandoned novels." Most genres are acceptable (though erotica, romance, and children's books are excluded). The deadline for submission is November 30, 2008.

AbandonedNovel's parent company is Teton River Productions, whose press release about the venture can be seen here.

Tempted? I can understand why you might be. Most writers have manuscripts they've given up on--books they had great hopes for but never finished, books they finished and submitted without success, books that didn't work out as planned or that had insoluble plot or character problems. (My abandoned novel is a historical that my agent refused to represent unless I completely re-worked the concept and characters; I didn't feel I was capable of doing what she wanted, so I set it aside. I was devastated, of course--but several years and four books on, I can see that her assessment was 100% correct--and I can also, as I couldn't then, see how to fix the problems.) If the manuscript is just sitting on your hard drive, going nowhere and doing nothing, why not jump at the chance to (maybe) let it see the light of day?

Not so fast. As you might suspect from the fact that I'm blogging about it, AbandonedNovel has problems.

Problem Number One: Teton River Productions, AbandonedNovel's parent company, does not appear to have an iota of publishing experience. The press release linked in above describes AbandonedNovel as "Teton River's first foray into print media." Teton River's business, according to its website, is providing web design, hosting, and content services, as well as producing "original video, audio and print materials"--all very far from publishing (and even in those areas, its track record to date seems scanty). As I've said so many times before, querying new publishers is risky, and the risk is even greater when those publishers have no experience.

Problem Number Two: the fine print. In this case, AbandonedNovel's Terms and Conditions, to which writers submitting material must agree in full. Slide on down to Clause 4:

You agree that by submitting the work to us, you grant us a three year option to enter into an agreement with you to publish the work. During that time, you will not submit the work to any other publisher, nor will you self-publish or display the work in any public forum.

In other words, AbandonedNovel is demanding a three year exclusive submission period, in order to preserve its option to (maybe) publish your work at some future date, even if it doesn't accept you into the currently-planned anthology. This is completely unreasonable, in my opinion. It's fine to demand exclusive submission--many publishers do--but exclusivity should endure only until a work is rejected or accepted, and if the submission is for for an anthology project, the rejection or acceptance should be for that work only. A publisher should not keep writers on a string for years at a time just in case it might decide to someday use their work in some future volume as yet unplanned.

What's the big deal? you may ask. These are abandoned novels, after all--if all they're doing is gathering dust, where's the harm, even if the publisher is an amateur and the submission requirements aren't so great? But amateur publishers and bad submission requirements may well add up to crappy contract terms, if publication is offered--not to mention minimal sales and tiny exposure. I'd rather leave my work sitting on my computer forever than consign it to such a fate. Also, do you really want to have your work tied up for three whole years? (AbandonedNovel only wants your first chapter, but if your first chapter is tied up, so is the rest of the book.) Like me, you might figure out how to fix your abandoned novel, and decide to finish it. Even if you never do, there is a principle involved (yeah, I know I'm boring with all this ethical crap). Publishers--and writers--often try to rationalize bad contract or submission terms by saying "Well, it's only 500 words," or "Well, it's not like it'll be published anywhere else" or "Well, it's a way to get your name out there." But bad terms are bad terms. Rationalize as you wish, but there is never a good excuse to offer them--or a good reason to accept them.

Besides, if your trunk novel is complete and you're dying to get it out into the world, there's a better (and way cooler) alternative: Trunk Novels, a publishing service that specializes in bringing abandoned books to life. Trunk Novels charges no fees, takes only the rights necessary to e- and POD-publish, and makes books available for free download. No muss, no fuss, no lousy submission or contract terms--plus, you can publish the whole thing, not just the first chapter. (Disclaimer: I'm acquainted with some of the people involved with this site.)

Victoria Strauss -- Tales of the Big Advance

2008-08-11T19:06:00.005-05:00

If you're a writer and have a pulse, you probably have seen this news story (or this one or this one) about Lorna Page, the 93-year-old British author who hit it big with her debut novel, and with the proceeds bought a large house in Devon so that her elderly friends could live with her rather than in a nursing home.

Despite some discrepancies (some of the news stories report that Ms. Page received "a significant advance" for her novel; others just mention sales proceeds) this heartwarming tale is getting huge press coverage. If you type "Lorna Page" into Google News, you'll see articles in half a dozen languages from news sources all over the world.

However, there's something odd about this story. Ms. Page's book, A Dangerous Weakness, is published by AuthorHouse.

As I'm sure all Writer Beware's readers--unlike, apparently, much of the press--are aware, AuthorHouse is a self-publishing service, which not only doesn't pay advances, but charges a fee to publish. Average sales figures for AuthorHouse books, based on AuthorHouse's own statistics, are around 150 copies.

So what is going on here? Has AuthorHouse made an exception to its no-advance policy? Has Ms. Page's book, against all the odds, sold well enough to enable her to buy a house that reportedly cost more than 300,000 pounds? Or is this (as some people have theorized) a clever publicity stunt designed to drive sales?

My hunch: none of the above. I think it's just sloppy journalism.

Have a look at this press release about Ms. Page and her book, dated June 26, 2008, which says: "A 93-year-old woman is having her first novel published and with the book's proceeds plans to buy a large house in Devon so she can give a real home to some of her friends who are currently in nursing homes."

Take a look also at this article from BBC News, dated August 11, 2008 (and listen to the video clip that accompanies it). Nothing at all is said about Ms. Page using the proceeds from her book to buy the house in Devon. The article simply reports that "A 93-year-old woman who has had her first novel published has bought a house in Devon so she can help friends stay out of nursing homes...She hopes the book's royalties will pay enough so her friends do not have to move into nursing homes, something she dreads."

I suspect the newspapers used both these sources and made a leap of logic, assuming that, since the house had been bought, the hoped-for proceeds were already in hand. In some cases, they further assumed that "book proceeds" equaled "advance." That, and the human interest angle, spurred the current rash of what I believe is inaccurate reportage.

Why am I so sure it's inaccurate? It's possible that under some circumstances AuthorHouse might make an exception to its usual policy, and pay an advance--but I'm not aware of a single instance in which that has ever happened. Also, even if Ms. Page's book has sold extraordinarily well--and to generate more than 300,000 pounds in royalties, it would have to have sold like hotcakes on steroids; it's hard to imagine a POD service being able to keep up with that kind of demand--it has a publication date of July 12, 2008. According to its Author Agreement, AuthorHouse remits royalties quarterly. Brisk sales or no, Ms. Page hasn't gotten a royalty check yet.

By making this post, I mean no disrespect to Lorna Page and her family, or to their worthy and warmhearted dream of helping elderly people avoid nursing homes. They are not responsible for journalists' cock-ups, and if any of my guesses are wrong, I will humbly apologize. But I can already imagine the self-publishing booster mill ramping up to trumpet yet another tale of Self-Publishing Success. Because of the hype, myths, and misconceptions that surround self-publishing, I think it's important to present an alternative view.

Ms. Page's book currently has a very low ranking on Amazon UK and is temporarily out of stock, suggesting that the news stories have spurred sales. I hope Ms. Page makes a lot of money.