I’m typing this on the laptop we bought my mom so she could email Sam when Sam was doing her junior year in Cairo. It was then handed down to Dani, who replaced it with a new one to take off to college. It’s old and small, but thank god it’s here because I’m told my Mac won’t be ready for three weeks.
Did I mention my book is due in five weeks?
It’s seems there’s only one Apple technician in Katrinaville. But it could be worse because he’s only been here two weeks. The last guy left in May. That’s right—they have a four-month backlog. Which is why I’ll be lucky to get my computer back in three weeks.
Oh, and my new car, which was supposed to have been delivered 6 October, has been delayed another week. BUT we did get my mother a new dryer, so at least I have someplace to do my laundry while I’m waiting for my washer to be fixed.
And I can even take my “new” laptop over there!
Friday, September 28, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Technology Karma
I've obviously enraged the technology gods. My computer is now wheezing and gasping, and after spending three days on the phone with Apple, I've been told to take my baby to the hospital.
It's not like I'm on deadline or anything!
Anyone recommend some incense I can burn? Chants? Sacrifices? Please, just make it stop!
It's not like I'm on deadline or anything!
Anyone recommend some incense I can burn? Chants? Sacrifices? Please, just make it stop!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
MERMAIDS Makes Its YouTube Debut
Well, I did it. The book trailer—or book video—or whatever you want to call it—for WHY MERMAIDS SING is up on YouTube.
Now that I see it on YouTube, I’d probably do it differently if I had it to do over—black writing instead of white, for instance. Do I expect this video to help sell the book? No. So why did I do it?
Um...
Sunday, September 23, 2007
List Inflation
You’ve heard of grade inflation. Well, now we have list inflation.
As of this week, the New York Times will split its paperback bestseller list into Mass Market Paperbacks and Trade Paperbacks. Their reasoning is that splitting the list will enable them to focus more attention on literary novels that are typically printed in trade paperback and that don’t usually have the velocity of sales necessary to put them on the standard bestseller list.
Yet there’s a boon here for genre paperback writers, too, since removing those rare but powerful literary novels that stay on the list for years, such as THE KITE RUNNER, will open up more slots for genre writers. Of course, many non-literary novels are also printed in trade paperback. Nicholas Sparks, for instance. Trade paperbacks have also become the form of choice for houses chasing the success of Philippa Gregory’s THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL. So I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of books with period paintings of headless women in fancy dress on their covers making the new trade paperback list, despite their actual mediocre sales.
The New York Times did this once before. When publishers complained that HARRY POTTER was gobbling up almost half the spots on the list, the Times created a separate list for “children’s books.”
Does all this really matter? Well, yes. Recent studies have shown that while the sales of established writers such as John Grisham are unaffected by their appearance on the list, “hitting the Times” gives a huge push to new, lesser-known writers. Michael Korda actually wrote an entire book on “Making the List” (although I think he used the PW list, since it's been around longer). So making the Times is a Big Deal. Many writers even have clauses in their contracts that call for them to receive a bonus of from $2-20,000 for every week they’re on the NYT.
There are lots of other lists, of course. There’s the PW list, the USA Today list, the Ingrams list, the Amazon.com list, etc. There are even lists for regions or individual cities. This is why you’ll sometimes see a writer referred to simply as “bestselling” without the NYT added. I, for instance, can rightfully call myself a “bestselling” author because my romances regularly used to hit the Ingrams (distributers) list, even though I’ve never been near the NYT list. But despite all the grumbling that the methodology used by the Times is flawed and that the USA Today list is really more accurate, no other list has close to the clout of the Times.
The official List used to be the first fifteen slots. Recently, the Times has also been releasing what they call the extended list, which is slots 16-30. Just making the extended list is a big deal, although not as big a deal as making THE List. Traditionally, a writer needed to hit the real List to be dubbed a “New York Times Bestselling Author.” But lately some publishers have been cheating and bestowing that coveted title on writers who “only” hit the extended list (leading to predictable snide whispers).
For reasons I’m not real clear on (but which probably have much to do with sales and marketing), the Times has now decided to expand THE List from fifteen to twenty. Which means that every week, if you add all the lists together, an extra thirty-five authors will now be able to officially style themselves as a “New York Times Bestselling Author.”
Of course, my opinion of bestselling fiction has never recovered from an extensive study of the List I made several years ago. To the general public, “New York Times Bestselling Author” means “good author.” Once, that may have been (mostly) true. Today, however, it generally (but not always) means “commercial, selling-out-to-the-lowest-common-denominator author.” And no, this isn’t sour grapes. I recently saw a list NYT authors from a date in the 1950’s (Hemingway, Lawrence, Pasternak) compared to a list from the Nineties (Patterson, Cromwell, Steele). Things had definitely changed, even before the Times started proliferating and expanding their lists. As for now?
Am I the only person who thinks that what is inflated is diminished?
As of this week, the New York Times will split its paperback bestseller list into Mass Market Paperbacks and Trade Paperbacks. Their reasoning is that splitting the list will enable them to focus more attention on literary novels that are typically printed in trade paperback and that don’t usually have the velocity of sales necessary to put them on the standard bestseller list.
Yet there’s a boon here for genre paperback writers, too, since removing those rare but powerful literary novels that stay on the list for years, such as THE KITE RUNNER, will open up more slots for genre writers. Of course, many non-literary novels are also printed in trade paperback. Nicholas Sparks, for instance. Trade paperbacks have also become the form of choice for houses chasing the success of Philippa Gregory’s THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL. So I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of books with period paintings of headless women in fancy dress on their covers making the new trade paperback list, despite their actual mediocre sales.
The New York Times did this once before. When publishers complained that HARRY POTTER was gobbling up almost half the spots on the list, the Times created a separate list for “children’s books.”
Does all this really matter? Well, yes. Recent studies have shown that while the sales of established writers such as John Grisham are unaffected by their appearance on the list, “hitting the Times” gives a huge push to new, lesser-known writers. Michael Korda actually wrote an entire book on “Making the List” (although I think he used the PW list, since it's been around longer). So making the Times is a Big Deal. Many writers even have clauses in their contracts that call for them to receive a bonus of from $2-20,000 for every week they’re on the NYT.
There are lots of other lists, of course. There’s the PW list, the USA Today list, the Ingrams list, the Amazon.com list, etc. There are even lists for regions or individual cities. This is why you’ll sometimes see a writer referred to simply as “bestselling” without the NYT added. I, for instance, can rightfully call myself a “bestselling” author because my romances regularly used to hit the Ingrams (distributers) list, even though I’ve never been near the NYT list. But despite all the grumbling that the methodology used by the Times is flawed and that the USA Today list is really more accurate, no other list has close to the clout of the Times.
The official List used to be the first fifteen slots. Recently, the Times has also been releasing what they call the extended list, which is slots 16-30. Just making the extended list is a big deal, although not as big a deal as making THE List. Traditionally, a writer needed to hit the real List to be dubbed a “New York Times Bestselling Author.” But lately some publishers have been cheating and bestowing that coveted title on writers who “only” hit the extended list (leading to predictable snide whispers).
For reasons I’m not real clear on (but which probably have much to do with sales and marketing), the Times has now decided to expand THE List from fifteen to twenty. Which means that every week, if you add all the lists together, an extra thirty-five authors will now be able to officially style themselves as a “New York Times Bestselling Author.”
Of course, my opinion of bestselling fiction has never recovered from an extensive study of the List I made several years ago. To the general public, “New York Times Bestselling Author” means “good author.” Once, that may have been (mostly) true. Today, however, it generally (but not always) means “commercial, selling-out-to-the-lowest-common-denominator author.” And no, this isn’t sour grapes. I recently saw a list NYT authors from a date in the 1950’s (Hemingway, Lawrence, Pasternak) compared to a list from the Nineties (Patterson, Cromwell, Steele). Things had definitely changed, even before the Times started proliferating and expanding their lists. As for now?
Am I the only person who thinks that what is inflated is diminished?
Friday, September 21, 2007
Finding a Repairman in Katrinaville
This is just venting, so you can go away if you want. After three weeks, I finally got a repair man to come look at my nearly-new LG washing machine. He replaced the computer (what idiot got the bright idea of putting a computer in a washing machine?), then announced the motor also needs to be replaced and he'll be back... in two weeks. Maybe.
I'm supposed to live FIVE weeks without a washing machine? I'm beginning to wish I'd simply thrown the #$%@ thing out and bought a new one (not an LG!) when it broke down for the third time. That's right, this is the third time in thirteen months the sucker has died. Of course, NOW it's no longer on warranty...
Thanks to Katrina, we have all new appliances. Unfortunately, it seems that after Katrina all the appliance manufacturers kicked their production into high gear and let quality control go out the window, which means that we now have a collection of new, expensive lemons.
I'd take my wash over to my mother's house, except her DRYER is broken...
I'm supposed to live FIVE weeks without a washing machine? I'm beginning to wish I'd simply thrown the #$%@ thing out and bought a new one (not an LG!) when it broke down for the third time. That's right, this is the third time in thirteen months the sucker has died. Of course, NOW it's no longer on warranty...
Thanks to Katrina, we have all new appliances. Unfortunately, it seems that after Katrina all the appliance manufacturers kicked their production into high gear and let quality control go out the window, which means that we now have a collection of new, expensive lemons.
I'd take my wash over to my mother's house, except her DRYER is broken...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
