You Got That Right, Ecclesiastes!

"All is vanity."
Ecclesiastes
**********************
The uproar over Harlequin Enterprises' launch of a self-publishing venture reminded me of something my father used to say. He was an honest businessman, but every once in a while, when he saw an unscrupulous competitor getting stinking rich, he would shake his head and say, "I'm in the wrong racket."

I sometimes wonder if I'm in the wrong racket too. Maybe I should have gone into vanity publishing. I'm sure I'd have made a fortune. Everyone who's gone into it has made one, so I can't blame anyone for succumbing to its allure.

And now mainstream publishing has jumped on the bandwagon, with respectable firms like religious publisher Thomas Nelson and, most recently, Harlequin Enterprises picking up the banner. The line that once sharply separated traditional publishing ("We pay you") and vanity publishing ("You pay us") has all but dissolved in this corrosive environment of fabulous riches.

My early exposure to the power of vanity occurred when I joined Scott Meredith's literary agency after graduating college. Meredith had a fee-reading operation that ran like a turbine engine. Using his agency's track record as bait - his brochure was a collage of six- and seven-digit checks paid to professional clients - Meredith attracted countless would-be authors prepared to shell out hundreds of dollars for a manuscript reading they hoped might lead to acceptance for representation and an eventual professional career. I don't believe I ever saw a book accepted for representation out of the fee-reading program in all the years I worked there. Meredith's operation made tons of money and he died a wealthy man.

Around 2000 a number of enterprising business people recognized the profit potential in self-published books utilizing digital media. (For purposes of this piece I draw no distinction between self-publication, subsidized publication and vanity publication.) Until then the most famous name in subsidy publishing was Vantage Press (which, significantly, is still going strong). But companies like iUniverse, Xlibris and an outfit called Fatbrain offered a variety of self-publication services. How well did they do?

Well, Fatbrain with its subsidiary Mighty-Words, which published technical and professional material online (someone described it as Amazon for geeks), was sold to Barnes & Noble for $64 million. Xlibris? Acquired by Random House for an undisclosed sum, then sold to Author Solutions, the vast self-publishing empire which embraces iUniverse, Author House, Wordclay, Inkubook and Canadian vanity publisher Trafford Press. Kevin Weiss, CEO of Author Solutions, projects $100 million in revenue in 2009. Last year, Author Solutions released more than 21,000 new titles, according to Mediabistro, "including one out of every 20 new titles put into distribution in the U.S. Overall, ASI's catalog now includes more than 120,000 titles from more than 85,000 authors." Author Solutions is partnering with Harlequin in its soon-to-be-renamed Horizons self-publication program.

But there's more. Publishers Marketplace publisher Michael Cader recently reported that "Ebook distributor and online self-publishing platform Smashwords announced late Friday that BarnesandNoble.com will sell titles from the company as part of its new 'premium feed.' Smashwords, which says they publish about 2,600 titles electronically, will sell to BN.com at a traditional discount... Founder Mark Coker says that 'additional distribution relationships are forthcoming.' He says that 'until today, it was difficult if not impossible for independent authors and publishers to gain such mainstream digital distibution.'"

Yet another company, Scribd, calls itself "the largest social publishing company in the world, the website where tens of millions of people each month publish and discover original writings and documents." Scribd boasts "10 million documents published" and "5 million Scribd document reader embeds." Last spring it was reported that Scribd was partnering "with a number of major publishers, including Random House, Simon & Schuster, Workman Publishing Co., Berrett-Koehler, Thomas Nelson, and Manning Publications, to legally offer some of their content to Scribd’s community free of charge. Publishers have begun to add an array of content to Scribd’s library, including full-length novels as well as briefer teaser excerpts."

With so much money being thrown at subsidy publishers, and with the blessing of mainstream publishing, the evolution of vanity from the margins to the center of the publishing universe is complete. The erosion of traditional gatekeepers like reviewers, critics, newspaper book editors, and other refined literary tastemakers makes it clear why even a conservative publisher might lose its head over the prospect of all that money - and be tempted to go into another racket.

Richard Curtis

A Texas Empire Forged Out of Grit, Gold and Gunpowder

Matthew Braun, author of 56 books with some 40 million copies in print, is the greatest living practitioner of the western novel. Winner of the Owen Wister Award for lifetime achievement in western fiction, he writes with a passion for historical accuracy and detail that has earned him a reputation as the most authentic portrayer of the American West. Braun continues to travel the West, gathering materials for his novels. And if you cross him, better keep your hands where he can see them. He has a lifetime appointment as Oklahoma Territorial Marshal.

We are happy to be reissuing one of his most distinguished novels, Lords of the Land, in trade paperback format.

Hank Laird had never laid claim to sainthood. Truth is, his enemies would be quick to swear that the man was the devil himself-a reputation Laird earned as one of the most hardscrabble men ever to grace the soil of South Texas. With grit, gold and gunpowder, he forged an empire out of chaos in the wake of the Civil War. But now the vultures are coming home to roost and it's up to Laird whether Santa Guerra ranchlands will be heaven or hell.

You can visit Braun's website at http://www.mattbraun.com/home.htm

RC

An Apology

In my haste to report the story of the Romance Writers of America's response to the self-publishing venture launched by Harlequin Enterprises, I selected some photo illustrations that were in poor taste. I regret it and have deleted them from my postings. They were inappropriate and, I realize, belittled the grave issues that are being aired by all people of good will who are working to find a way to resolve the dispute. In particular they were offensive to women including my wife, to whom I should have listened before giving in to an unworthy impulse.

Richard Curtis

50% of Americans Would Pay for Online News, But They Wouldn't Pay Much

If you're getting it for nothing, why would you pay for it? Well, if you're talking about news delivered online, about half of Americans say they would pay for it, according to a survey of 5000 people undertaken by the Boston Consulting Group.

That seems surprisingly high given the fact that America is the land of the free news. It's so easily accessible on television or the Net that being asked to pay for it is like being asked to pay for air. Maybe that's why those who say they would pay for news online don't think it's worth more than $3.00 a month. "In several Western European countries, more than 60 percent said they would pay,"writes Richard Pérez-Peña of the New York Times, adding that many would pay as much as $7 a month.

Even the higher figure is a fraction of a subscription to a printed newspapers. On the other hand, most of that subscription cost is for plant, paper and distribution. "Charging for online access to news would not greatly increase a newspaper’s revenue," says Pérez-Peña, " but since the cost of reaching Internet readers [is] very low, it could significantly increase profit."

Read details in About Half in U.S. Would Pay for Online News, Study Finds.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by The New York Times.

Science Fiction Writers of America Tosses Fuel on Horizons Conflagration

Russell Davis, President of Science Fiction Writers of America, has issued the following statement on the ever-widening controversy surrounding Harlequin Enterprises' launch of a self-publication website. Here's the essence:

"Until such time as Harlequin changes course, and returns to a model of legitimately working with authors instead of charging authors for publishing services, SFWA has no choice but to be absolutely clear that NO titles from ANY Harlequin imprint will be counted as qualifying for membership in SFWA. Further, Harlequin should be on notice that while the rules of our annual Nebula Award do not expressly prohibit self-published titles from winning, it is highly unlikely that our membership would ever nominate or vote for a work that was published in this manner."

Full statement below.

We haven't heard from the Western Writers of America...yet.
Richard Curtis
****************************
SFWA Statement on Harlequin’s self-publishing imprint

November, 2009, Harlequin Enterprises, Ltd. announced the launch of a new imprint, Harlequin Horizons, for aspiring romance authors. Under normal circumstances, the addition of a new imprint by a major house would be cause for celebration in the professional writing community. Unfortunately, these are not normal circumstances. Harlequin Horizons is a joint venture with Author Solutions, and it is a vanity/subsidy press that relies upon payments and income from aspiring writers to earn profit, rather than sales of books to actual readers.

The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Inc. (SFWA) finds it extremely disappointing that Harlequin has chosen to launch an imprint whose sole purpose appears to be the enrichment of the corporate coffers at the expense of aspiring writers. According to their website, “Now with Harlequin Horizons, more writers have the opportunity to enter the market, hone their skills and achieve the goals that burn in their hearts.”

SFWA calls on Harlequin to openly acknowledge that Harlequin Horizon titles will not be distributed to brick-and-mortar bookstores, thus ensuring that the titles will not be breaking into the real fiction market. SFWA also asks that Harlequin acknowledge that the imprint does not represent a genuine opportunity for aspiring authors to hone their skills, as no editor will be vetting or working on the manuscripts. Further, SFWA believes that work published with Harlequin Horizons may injure writing careers by associating authors’ names with small sales levels reflected by the imprint’s lack of distribution, as well as its emphasis upon income received from writers and not readers. SFWA supports the fundamental principle that writers should be paid for their work, and even those who aspire to professional status and payment ought not to be charged for the privilege of having those aspirations.

Until such time as Harlequin changes course, and returns to a model of legitimately working with authors instead of charging authors for publishing services, SFWA has no choice but to be absolutely clear that NO titles from ANY Harlequin imprint will be counted as qualifying for membership in SFWA. Further, Harlequin should be on notice that while the rules of our annual Nebula Award do not expressly prohibit self-published titles from winning, it is highly unlikely that our membership would ever nominate or vote for a work that was published in this manner.

Already the world’s largest romance publisher, Harlequin should know better than anyone else in the industry the importance of treating authors professionally and with the respect due the craft; Harlequin should have the internal fortitude to resist the lure of easy money taken from aspiring authors who want only to see their work professionally published and may be tempted to believe that this is a legitimate avenue towards those goals.

SFWA does not believe that changing the name of the imprint, or in some other way attempting to disguise the relationship to Harlequin, changes the intention, and calls on Harlequin to do the right thing by immediately discontinuing this imprint and returning to doing business as an advance and royalty paying publisher.

For the Board of Directors,
Russell Davis
President
SFWA, Inc.

Horizons Controversy: Nora Roberts Distinguishes between You Pay Us and We Pay You

Romance fiction icon Nora Roberts weighed in on the soon-to-be-name-changed Harlequin Horizons controversy, in a comment on the Smart Bitches, Trashy Books website. Ms. Roberts is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at next summer's Romance Writers of America national conference. Harlequin publishes many of her books, so we'll be all ears for that speech!

Richard Curtis
********************************
Nora Roberts said on...11.19.09 at 03:40 AM

~Professional” authors are already paying for packaging, editorial, promotion and admin (copyright and such) through the rather huge chunk the publishers take from the revenue pile. FACT: The author gets what… 6 - 8% of the take? That means the traditional publisher gets 92 -94%.~

Just no.

When a publisher BUYS the rights to your book, they PAY you an advance on royalties. You do not PAY them. You get a check for the SALE of your rights. You have sold your book, you have not paid to have your book published.

The publisher then shells out the money for all the areas of publication, invests considerable time and money into that publication as it has bought the book and paid the author an advance on royalties. When the book is published, the author will receive more money when that advance earns off. The author does not pay, but is paid.

In addition to getting a check rather than giving one, the author receives the support, experience, muscle, editorial input, etc, etc, from the publisher.

Vanity press is called vanity for a reason. You’re paying for your ego. That’s fine, dealer’s choice.

But it’s a different matter when a big brand publisher uses its name and its resources to sell this as dream fulfillment, advertises it as such while trying to claim it’s not really their brand being used to make money on mss they’ve rejected as not worthy of that brand in the first place.

Harlequin, "Surprised and Dismayed" by RWA Action, Defends Decision But Moves to Change Program Name

Donna Hayes, Publisher and CEO of Harlequin Enterprises, issued a statement today expressing disappointment that Romance Writers of America went to its membership over the Horizons self-publishing issue, rather than "allowing Harlequin to respond or engage in a discussion about it with the RWA board" Ms. Hayes reminded us of the many and abundant ways Harlequin has supported RWA over the years. And, finally, she announced that "we are changing the name of the self-publishing company from Harlequin Horizons to a designation that will not refer to Harlequin in any way. We will initiate this process immediately."

Ms. Hayes concluded by saying, "We hope this allays the fears many of you have communicated to us." Whether it does or not, Harlequin now has another fire to put out: Mystery Writers of America. See MWA's statement published earlier today.
RC

Below, the full text of Donna Hayes' statement:
************************************************
Harlequin was very surprised and dismayed to receive notice late yesterday that the RWA has decided that Harlequin is no longer eligible for RWA-provided conference resources. We were even more surprised to discover that the RWA sent a notice to its membership announcing this decision, before allowing Harlequin to respond or engage in a discussion about it with the RWA board.

Harlequin has been a significant supporter of the RWA for many years in several ways, including:

• financial sponsorships at the annual conference

• sending editors to the national and regional chapter conferences throughout the year to meet with and advise aspiring authors and participate in panel discussions on writing

• celebrating our authors, most of whom are RWA members, annually with the largest publisher party at the conference.

It is disappointing that the RWA has not recognized that publishing models have and will continue to change. As a leading publisher of women's fiction in a rapidly changing environment, Harlequin's intention is to provide authors access to all publishing opportunities, traditional or otherwise.

Most importantly, however, we have heard the concerns that you, our authors, have expressed regarding the potential confusion between this venture and our traditional business. As such, we are changing the name of the self-publishing company from Harlequin Horizons to a designation that will not refer to Harlequin in any way. We will initiate this process immediately. We hope this allays the fears many of you have communicated to us.

We are committed to connecting with our authors and aspiring authors in a significant way and encourage you to continue to share your thoughts with us.

Sincerely
Donna Hayes
Publisher and Chief Executive Officer
Harlequin Enterprises Limited

Mystery Writers of America Steps into Harlequin Fray with Threat of Sanctions

This just received from Mystery Writers of America
***********************************
MWA Statement Regarding Harlequin
Recently, Harlequin Enterprises launched two new business ventures aimed at aspiring writers, the Harlequin Horizons self-publishing program and the eHarlequin Manuscript Critique service (aka "Learn to Write"), both of which are widely promoted on its website and embedded in the manuscript submission guidelines for all of its imprints.

Mystery Writers of America (MWA) is deeply concerned about the troubling conflict-of-interest issues created by these ventures, particularly the potentially misleading way they are marketed to aspiring writers on the Harlequin website.

It is common for disreputable publishers to try to profit from aspiring writers by steering them to their own for-pay editorial, marketing, and publishing services. The implication is that by paying for those services, the writer is more likely to sell his manuscript to the publisher. Harlequin recommends the "eHarlequin Manuscript Critique Service" in the text of its manuscript submission guidelines for all of its imprints and include a link to "Harlequin Horizons," its new self-publishing arm, without any indication that these are advertisements.

That, coupled with the fact that these businesses share the Harlequin name, may mislead writers into believing they can enhance their chances of being published by Harlequin by paying for these services. Offering these services violates long-standing MWA rules for inclusion on our Approved Publishers List.

On November 9, Mystery Writers of America sent a letter to Harlequin about the "eHarlequin Manuscript Critique Service," notifying Harlequin that it is in violation of our rules and suggesting steps that Harlequin could take to remain on our Approved Publishers list. The steps outlined at that time included removing mention of this for-pay service entirely from its manuscript submission guidelines, clearly identifying any mention of this program as paid advertisement, and, adding prominent disclaimers that this venture was totally unaffiliated with the editorial side of Harlequin, and that paying for this service is not a factor in the consideration of manuscripts. Since that letter went out, Harlequin has launched "Harlequin Horizons," a self-publishing program.

MWA's November 9 letter asks that Harlequin respond to our concerns and recommendations by December 15. We look forward to receiving their response and working with them to protect the interests of aspiring writers. If MWA and Harlequin are unable to reach an agreement, MWA will take appropriate action which may include removing Harlequin from the list of MWA approved publishers, declining future membership applications from authors published by Harlequin and declaring that books published by Harlequin will not be eligible for the Edgar Awards.

We are taking this action because we believe it is vitally important to alert our members of unethical and predatory publishing practices that take advantage of their desire to be published. We respect Harlequin and its authors and hope the company will take the appropriate corrective measures.

This e-bulletin was prepared by Margery Flax on behalf of MWA's National Board of Directors.

Correction

In our coverage of the friction between Harlequin and Romance Writers of America (New Harlequin Venture Doesn't Pass Romance Writers of America Smell Test) we may have given the impression that both of the recently announced initiatives, Carina and Horizons, are self-publishing enterprises. Angela James, Executive Editor of Carina Press, has informed us that "Carina and Horizons are two separate entities and Carina is not affiliated in any way with self-publishing. We [Carina] differ from the traditional model in two ways: our books go digital-first and rather than paying advances we pay larger royalties. But Carina is not a self-publishing enterprise and I'd hate for anyone reading your post to think it was."

We're happy to set the record straight and apologize for any misimpression we may have communicated. And while we're at we do want to express our hope that Harlequin and RWA will find a path back to the harmony that has characterized their relationship for decades.

We also take this opportunity to reiterate our welcome to Carina Press and wishes for its success.

Richard Curtis

New Harlequin Venture Doesn't Pass Romance Writers of America Smell Test

If you felt the earth move under your feet today, you may have been experiencing the shock of a clash between two formidable forces in the romance field, Harlequin and Romance Writers of America. The stress in their longstanding and mutually beneficial alliance, has opened a fissure extending to Nashville, where next summer's annual RWA conference is scheduled to take place.

Here's the background:

Last week Harlequin Enterprises Limited, the world's foremost romance publisher, announced the formation of all-digital-all-the-the time romance publisher Carina Press/Harlequin Horizons. It was created to operate independently of Harlequin's traditional publishing businesses, and a key element is self-published books. "We expect to discover new authors and unique voices that may not be able to find homes in traditional publishing houses," said Donna Hayes, CEO and Publisher of Harlequin Enterprises. In a subsequent press release Harlequin stated that "the books self-published through Harlequin Horizons will NOT be branded Harlequin, nor will they be distributed by Harlequin or appear in stores next to your books."

The self-publication aspect of the Horizons/Carina enterprise did not sit well with the Romance Writers of America brass, not because self-published authors and subsidy publishers are unwelcome under RWA's capacious tent. But, rather, because it is RWA policy to deny conference resources to publishers that do not qualify under its definition of legitimacy.

"RWA allocates select conference resources to non-subsidy/non-vanity presses that meet the eligibility requirements to obtain those resources," RWA president Michelle Monkou stated today. "Eligible publishers are provided free meeting space for book signings, are given the opportunity to hold editor appointments, and are allowed to offer spotlights on their programs."

That leaves Harlequin Horizons/Carina out. The decision does not affect Harlequin Enterprises' core publishing imprints, nor does it mean the Horizons/Carina editorial staff will be unable to attend. It just means they won't have a seat at the official table. But RWA's ukase may certainly affect the warm and mutually profitable relationship between these organizations. Harlequin's support is vital to the success of the annual bash, which is capped by Harlequin's blowout party featuring sinful pastries, an unstanched flow of liquid refreshment, and boisterous disco dancing.

Romance publishing constitutes about 25% of all trade book revenue, so the two sisters had better patch things up before July. See y'all in Nashville. Maybe.

Below is the text of RWA's position statement. Click here for Harlequin's detailed explanation and FAQs about the Horizons/Carina program.

RC
*****************************************
RWA Alert: RWA Responds to Harlequin Horizons

Dear Members:

Romance Writers of America was informed of the new venture between Harlequin Enterprises and ASI Solutions to form Harlequin Horizons, a vanity/subsidy press. Many of you have asked the organization to state its position regarding this new development. As a matter of policy, we do not endorse any publisher’s business model. Our mission is the advancement of the professional interests of career-focused romance writers.

One of your member benefits is the annual National Conference. RWA allocates select conference resources to non-subsidy/non-vanity presses that meet the eligibility requirements to obtain those resources. Eligible publishers are provided free meeting space for book signings, are given the opportunity to hold editor appointments, and are allowed to offer spotlights on their programs.

With the launch of Harlequin Horizons, Harlequin Enterprises no longer meets the requirements to be eligible for RWA-provided conference resources. This does not mean that Harlequin Enterprises cannot attend the conference. Like all non-eligible publishers, they are welcome to attend. However, as a non-eligible publisher, they would fund their own conference fees and they would not be provided with conference resources by RWA to publicize or promote the company or its imprints.

Sometimes the wind of change comes swiftly and unexpectedly, leaving an unsettled feeling. RWA takes its role as advocate for its members seriously. The Board is working diligently to address the impact of recent developments on all of RWA's members.

We invite you to attend the annual conference on July 28 - 31, 2010 in Nashville, TN, as we celebrate 30 years of success with keynote speaker Nora Roberts, special luncheon speaker Jayne Ann Krentz, librarian speaker Sherrilyn Kenyon, and awards ceremony emcee Sabrina Jeffries. Please refer to the RWA Web site for conference registration information in late January 2010.

Looking forward to seeing you at the Gaylord Opryland!

Michelle Monkou
RWA President

If Amazon Reviews are Meaningless, Why Are Authors Paying to Have Them Written?

About two years ago we asked Do Amazon Reviews Count? and wondered why we saw so few of them quoted by respectable publishers. "We live in an age when peer review is meaningful if not significant," I noted, thinking about the fabulously successful Zagat restaurant review model utilizing the opinions of our very own next-door neighbors.

If the same group-sourcing dynamic could be applied to books, we could see a revolution in the way books are reviewed to match the way they are digitally delivered. If Amazon could assemble a cadre of reviewers to replace the publishing establishment's phalanx of critics, endorsers and other brand-bestowing literary Gatekeepers, the 21st century's paradigm shift would be that much closer to total.

But it all depends on the integrity of Amazon's reviewers, just as our assessment of a restaurant's ambiance, service and food depend on the integrity of the men and women who write it up for Zagat. So, it was with no small measure of concern that I read a blog by Scott MacDonald in Quill & Quire calling our attention to a website called readerspoils.com that arranges for authors to pay for reviews on Amazon. "Yes, that’s right," MacDonald writes, "for just $15 U.S. you can get a completely 'honest' review of your book posted to Amazon in mere days!" In fact, he adds, while $15 is the base price, the site "is apparently selling reviews only in bulk quantities: 100 reviews for $1,400 and 500 reviews for a mere $6,500."

The site's owner is a self-published promoter named Clark Covington (pictured left) who describes himself as "a book writing fool. I’ve written several nonfiction books, and have a fiction novel in the works." For many agents the redundant phrase "fiction novel" instantly identifies the author as a writing fool, but we'll let that pass. Because when it comes to P. T. Barnum pitch, Covington is nobody's fool. Here it is:

"Up until now the publishing industry kept a tight lock on their book reviewers, paying them large sums of money and giving them many freebies to urge them to review books for well known authors. The time has finally come where you, the self published author, can get quality, real life book reviews for the price of a couple of tickets to the movies..."

You are then instructed to select how many reviews you want, prepay for them, and enter information about your book, whereupon "You receive an email from us when all of your reviews are posted on Amazon, usually within a week of your purchase." In case you're still on the fence, Covington furnishes sample Amazon reviews including video testimonials."I admit it, this sounds unbelievable," Covington adds, beating us to the punch. "This sounds too remarkable to be true, this is the type of thing that makes you want to call your local attorney general and tell them a scam is brewing." Covington claims to have access to 5,000 reviewers. How does he line them up?

"With a few strokes of luck and a hearty bribe, that’s how," he boasts. Readers interested in reviewing can register on the site, and apparently there is some sort of consideration. I came across one complaint by a reviewer who claims to have gotten stiffed.

This operation is so patently humbug that it would be falling-down-funny if it were not for the stain it casts on the potential honesty and integrity of Amazon's review system. Yes, it is true that the imperfect old review system is also subject to manipulation and even corruption. But Amazon represents an opportunity to get it right, to hear the recommendations of intelligent peers and neighbors about books that interest us. If we lose our trust in their honesty - the Quill & Quire article is called One more reason not to trust reader reviews - we also lose our literary value system.

Many of us grew up in a world where there were legitimate books and there were vanity books and everyone knew which ones to take seriously thanks to the tastemakers and gatekeepers. If they were biased, if their judgment was flawed, if they sometimes exalted the worthless and trashed the sublime, we lived with it because it was the only system we had. But now there is another way, and as we move into a socially networked future most of us are willing to give it a chance - unless we suspect the game is rigged.

Richard Curtis

Aerosol Makes Your Nook Smell Like Crunchy Bacon

A while back we wrote up a book lover who said she was reluctant to buy a Kindle "unless Amazon comes out with a special 'book scented' Kindle." (See If They Can Make the Kindle Smell Like a Book, Maybe She'll Buy One). It was all kind of a joke, but an enterprising manufacturer took it seriously enough to produce a line of aromatics simulating book scents. The aromas include New Book Smell and Classic Musty. The product is trademarked as Smell of Books™ and here's how their website describes it:

Does your Kindle leave you feeling like there’s something missing from your reading experience?
Have you been avoiding e-books because they just don’t smell right?
If you’ve been hesitant to jump on the e-book bandwagon, you’re not alone. Book lovers everywhere have resisted digital books because they still don’t compare to the experience of reading a good old fashioned paper book.
But all of that is changing thanks to Smell of Books™, a revolutionary new aerosol e-book enhancer.
Now you can finally enjoy reading e-books without giving up the smell you love so much. With Smell of Books™ you can have the best of both worlds, the convenience of an e-book and the smell of your favorite paper book.
Smell of Books™ is compatible with a wide range of e-reading devices and e-book formats and is 100% DRM-compatible. Whether you read your e-books on a Kindle or an iPhone using Stanza, Smell of Books™ will bring back that real book smell you miss so much.

Among the five smells offered is "Crunchy Bacon". This is a welcome novelty for noses jaded by such natural book fragrances as grass, leather, printer's ink, and decaying paper. Hopefully, the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library and the Bibliothèque Nationale de France will invest heavily in shpritzing their collections with Crunchy Bacon. Some other but lesser known aromas associated with books are baked lamb shank, General Cho's Chicken, and asparagus vinaigrette.

On a more scientific note, Henry Fountain of the New York Times reports on research to quantify old-book odors to help librarians preserve books more effectively. Fountain describes how conservators "analyzed the volatiles produced by 72 samples of old paper of different types and in varying condition from the 19th and 20th centuries, using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. They found that some compounds were reliable markers for paper with certain characteristics — high concentrations of lignin or rosin, for example, which make paper degrade relatively quickly."

There was apparently no manifestation of crunchy bacon in the spectrum analyzed by the scientists, but it is well known that subatomic bacon particles are even more elusive to detect spectrometrically than the Higgs boson, and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN may be required to capture one.

Read Digging Into the Science of That Old-Book Smell.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by The New York Times.

What's It Worth to Turn Off Apple Ad Popups?

Remember why Tivo was invented? Looks like we'll now need the equivalent of a Tivo to skip embedded advertising popups that simply will not go away until you acknowledge them with a click. Certainly that's an Apple App waiting to be invented, yes?

Don't count on it. The evil feature was created by Apple CEO Steve Jobs himself. Of the five inventors listed on the patent application, his name comes first. The application would post popups on anything that has a screen: phones, TVs, games, media players - if it has a screen the ads will appear, and they will not go away until you actively do something about them.

Randall Stross, writing in the Digital Domain column of the New York Times, describes the technology: "Its distinctive feature is a design that doesn’t simply invite a user to pay attention to an ad — it also compels attention. The technology can freeze the device until the user clicks a button or answers a test question to demonstrate that he or she has dutifully noticed the commercial message. Because this technology would be embedded in the innermost core of the device, the ads could appear on the screen at any time, no matter what one is doing."

In other words, you are now utterly at the mercy of the advertiser.

As Stross explains it, "What the application calls the “enforcement routine” entails administering periodic tests, like displaying on top of an ad a pop-up box with a response button that must be pressed within five seconds before disappearing to confirm that the user is paying attention."

Or, to put it crudely, Apple holds you down while the advertiser inserts its ad. And there's no app to prevent it.

Stross wonders aloud if the invention could be a big turnoff even for fanatically loyal Apple lovers: "Would anyone have guessed that Apple, so widely revered, would seek patent protection of a gimmick not unlike one used to sell vacation timeshares?"

For details, read Apple Wouldn’t Risk Its Cool Over a Gimmick, Would It?

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by The New York Times.

Jealous Rivals Determined to Tank Google Settlement?

Google, the Authors Guild, and publishing industry leaders have filed a revised and sweetened settlement with the court. To those who are still opposed to it despite every reasonable effort to placate them, a request:

Spare us the hypocrisy.

You can dress up your objections to the Google settlement in legal niceties and pious pleas for fairness, but the truth is you're just jealous that Google took initiatives that you lacked the vision to take - until it looked like there was money to be made. So now you want to gut the settlement so you can get a piece of the action you didn't raise a finger or spend a dime to earn.

Where were you when a treasure house of literary works was abandoned? And isn't it odd that now that someone has come along with a viable plan to recover that treasure and wants to make a reasonable profit, you have suddenly become passionate bibliophiles and champions of fairness?

Google, the publishing industry, and the Authors Guild have walked an extra mile to satisfy your so-called "concerns". A revised and sweetened settlement has been presented to the court. Do the right thing: honor the men and women of good will who have forged it, the corporate leaders who deserve to profit from it and the generations of humanity that stand to benefit from it.

Read the sweetened terms of the settlement here. For additional observations read Google Settlement Under Attack for Making Treasure Out of Trash.

Richard Curtis