I'm wrapping up a sizable wholesale order now, so I've been listening to a lot of audiobooks as I dye. I've finally come across my first repeat narrator. Too bad it's someone I really don't like, Carrington MacDuffie. Her female characters often have an obnoxious whine in their voices, to the point where she makes me hate certain characters who I'd probably like otherwise. The other female option appears to be chirpy. And the shading in her voice when she's trying to convey melancholy ... ugh. I just want to smack her. I didn't bother finishing the first book she narrated, The Friday Night Knitting Club. I've persisted with listening to the current one, In the Shadow of the Glacier, because it's the most popular MP3 book at my library and I thought it had to be at least a little bit worthwhile, but she's really detracting from my experience of the book.

It's interesting, watching my own reaction to listening to different books, and sorting out my reaction to the content vs. the narrator. Also, I experience audiobooks at an inherently slower pace than print books, which is a good thing with great books (only one so far, Master and Commander) and a painful thing with bad ones, when my mind lingers on unhappy word choices and idiotic dialogue.

Tags: books

Someone with more legal knowledge than me talks about whether Macmillan's retail price maintenance (via the agency model) is actually legal:

http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2010/01/31/is-macmillans-retail-price-maintenance-move-legal

And can Amazon and Apple serve as Macmillan's agent in Maryland? Maybe not.

Tags: books

First: a hilarious summary of the situation.

So I think I finally get why Macmillan wants to lose money on e-books by jacking prices up to $15 per. It's not, as many commenters that I've read think, because they hate e-books and are trying to protect hardcover sales. Well, okay, no doubt there is some of that, and without being privy to financial info on sales of both formats for the same titles, I don't know to what extent they are right to fear cannibalizing their hardcover sales.

No, I think that, far from hating e-books, they think they are the future of publishing. If there are no paper books any more, or if they are a minority of sales, then the e-book price needs to be sufficient to bear non-printing production costs. So Macmillan is trying to raise the expectation of what an e-book should cost, in anticipation of the day when e-books will be the primary format.

Maybe this is glaringly obvious to most people, but I just came to this interpretation of what's happening. See, I think of e-books as gravy. To me, the print version bears all the sunk costs--author's cut, editing, art, CEO's salary, etc. You have to do all those things and pay all these costs to get the print version out. After that, it's a relatively simple process to kick out an e-book version. And any e-book sale is a bonus--free money. That's why I have the perception that an e-book shouldn't cost very much.

But if you're expecting the e-book version to pull its own weight in terms of sharing the sunk costs, then yeah, the e-books should cost more.

I think this difference in thinking of which format should bear the fixed costs is at the heart of pricing expectations, as well as a lot of the bitching that I've seen on all sides of the issue.

I have discovered a new-to-me blog, http://highclearing.com. He's an accounting analyst, and I find his financial analysis of production helpful. Also, at lunchtime I saw a copy of the Wall Street Journal, and they also seem to have the e-books-are-gravy perception. Interesting, since doubtlessly the writer knows more about the industry than I do.

Also: why is Amazonfail (HATE that term) bandied about so readily, but there is no Macmillanfail term? When they are hardly guiltless in all this? *cough* retail price maintenance *cough*

Tags: books

I'm not sure why I'm so up in arms about all this, as I don't really have a dog in this fight, being too cheap to buy even $9.99 e-books. But I'm majorly irritated by all the anti-Amazon chatter. Even now that Amazon has caved in to Macmillan's demands.

So I'll summarize my main grievances at the moment.

1. Macmillan is trying to circumvent the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Under the traditional wholesale model, the wholesaler sells an item to a retailer, who then chooses the price to sell the item at. To protect consumers, anti-trust provisions prohibit the wholesaler from requiring a fixed retail price. That's why a price is listed as a "manufacturer's suggested retail price."

By referring to Amazon as its "agent" and giving its agent a 30% commission, Macmillan is technically not participating in price fixing. Oh, except that it appears that Macmillan is requiring all of its e-book vendors to accept the agency model. Hm, seems to be treading awfully close to price fixing. The first example of an agency model that I can think of is Mary Kay. Or Tupperware. Where agents peddle their wares, take orders, and the company later distributes to the purchaser. The situation with Amazon, which takes books into its possession, doesn't feel like it really fits into this model.

2. A number of authors appear to be whining that Amazon is hurting them financially this weekend, by taking their books out of inventory. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that if a shopper is looking for a Macmillan book, and goes to Amazon looking for it, it is still available from third-party sellers through Amazon. Second, Amazon is not the only bookstore in the world. It's true that if one is looking for an e-book, Macmillan doesn't offer all (any?) of its titles in anything other than Kindle's format. But there are certainly many, many other places to buy any Macmillan author's book.

3. Amazon no longer requires Kindle books to be DRM-protected. I've seen a lot of statements this weekend that begin: "As long as Amazon requires DRM on Kindle books, I won't buy a Kindle." Amazon does not, in fact, require this any longer. It is strictly up to the publisher. Understandably, most publishers would prefer to make piracy difficult, and are continuing to protect their books.

I will be watching the results of Macmillan's price hike with interest. I'm betting that e-book sales will plummet and they'll realize that if they want to move product, they'll need to drop prices to something that the majority of customers will actually be willing to pay. Charge all you want, but if no one buys, then you won't be in business for long.

Tags: books, dumb people

I see that various people are up in arms over Amazon pulling Macmillan books from its web site, presumably over disagreements about e-book pricing. Amazon wants to keep the majority of its e-books no higher than $9.99; Macmillan wants to raise the price to $15.

As a Kindle owner who mostly uses the public library and only downloads free books (with the occasional 2 a.m. impulse purchase from the Kindle store), here's what I think. If the e-book price goes up to $15, I'm simply not going to buy it. I love having the Kindle and being able to bring it on trips out of town, knowing that I'll always have something that I'm in the mood to read. My lazy soul wallows in the joy of sitting in bed, thinking of a book I'd like to read, and acquiring it without ever leaving the comfort of my warm down comforter.

But no way am I going to pay $15 for an e-book. I couldn't even bring myself to buy Wolf Hall by Hilary Mandel at $8.99 when the library book was due and I hadn't finished it, because I felt it was too much to spend, even on a book that I was really enjoying. My purchase threshold is more around $4-$6. Instead, I got back in line at the library (#56, I believe). That's how averse I am to paying even $9 for an e-book.

Maybe most e-reader owners are not as cheap as I am, and they'd be willing to pony up 50% more for an e-book. Maybe publishers shouldn't care about customers like me, who have little shelf space and only buy books that they can't find at the library, and just go after consumers with deeper pockets. But I'll just say that I have been tempted to pay $9.99 for e-books before, but never felt even a twinge of covetousness for anything priced higher. I was utterly astonished when I looked at Powell's Books e-book section for the first time a few months ago, and saw electronic versions priced just a few dollars lower than the hardcover. Are you kidding me? Never in life would I pay that kind of premium.

The publishers have a chance with me at $9.99. They have zero possibility of a sale at $15. Isn't a chance at a sale better than none at all?

I gladly support authors whose work I love, and I have bought hardcovers with that in mind. But I can't reconcile that desire with e-book pricing that feels (fair or not) like gouging to me. I'm not made of money, and I'll just get the book at the library instead.

Tags: books

So, idiot girl here forgot to renew her passport, despite having known since, oh, 2006, that the Vancouver Olympics would be in Feb 2010. I've just been too stressed out the last few months to focus on it.

So now I have just three weeks left to get it done before opening ceremonies. (Though we don't have tickets to anything, so it's not imperative that I get expedited service, I suppose.) Or I could get a creepy enhanced driver's license, which beams unencrypted data out whenever I take it out of its little tin-foil hat protective sleeve. The EDL is cheaper than an expedited passport, though it takes just as long for processing--but at least it's just one mailing day.

I just hate myself for leaving this till the last minute. I *could* have done it right after I got back from Las Vegas, when I was thinking about it constantly. But no. I am just a procrastinating idiot.

Tags: travel
Current Mood: disgusted with self

My LJ feed got updated with his blog today, and after glancing at the headlines, I had to stop reading. I also unsubscribed. No wonder he got the heave-ho from WEEI.

Stick to baseball, Curt. No one wants to read the blog of an Ann Coulter apologist.

Tags: baseball
Current Mood: disgusted

So. My sister-in-law got engaged at Christmas, and for whatever reason (needed to match the number of groomsmen?) asked me to be a bridesmaid. It's supposed to be "informal," except that she's got four attendants plus her daughter is her maid of honor.

Okay. There was no good way for me to say no, so I said yes. She said the men/boys would all be wearing jeans and boots, so I thought that surely we would be casual, too.

Instead, I have to wear turquoise chiffon. At least I get to pick the exact style, but I'm damned if I know if any of them will fit me. My bust, waist and hip fall in wildly varying categories. The hell. And I don't really want to shell out $200 for a one-time dress, plus shoes (alas, I just tossed my wedding shoes last summer!).

Crap. I will, of course, shut up and toe the line. It's not up to me to say that it will look weird for the bride's side to be all fancy and for the groom's side to be wearing jeans. My job is to lose some inches around my waist and wear a padded bra, I think.

I'm looking at this one or this. They're fine. I just ... don't really want to deal with this.

Tags: relatives

A few nights ago, I was watching a performance of Handel's Messiah on YouTube. The boy walked by and started watching with me. There was one video where they showed the vocal score from the Hallelujah chorus, and I pointed out that you could see where the different voices came in. I explained that each line was for a different type of voice, etc.

Much to my surprise, the boy was hooked. He asked to watch it again the next day. Last night, while I was sorting through a pile of papers, he found a sheet of music that I had torn out of a handbell catalog, and asked me to play it on the "thing that looks like a recorder" (my flute). That eventually led to me digging out my copy of the oboe part from Scheherazade, and following along on a YouTube performance. He sat through three movements, totally fascinated.

It is a little weird. I would never have thought of following along with a score, as a way of introducing him to music. I'm not really sure where to go from here, though I do still have the recorder book that I learned from as a kid. When we were walking to preschool today, I mentioned it, and he seemed interested in trying it, so we'll start there.

Tags: music, parenting, preschooler

The big Christmas performances were this weekend--Fri night, Sat night, and Sun morning service. The bells were sort of eh this year, we don't have a very solid ensemble right now (though we'll have some veteran ringers returning in the spring, which is great). But the other music, wow! The music director decided to do Handel's Messiah as the core of the program. Not all of it, but a lot. Choir, baroque orchestra (featuring his harpsichord), and soloists. I generally don't like classical vocal music, so I'd never heard so much of it before, but the orchestra was stellar and the experience really reawakened my love of classical music. I wish I could pick up oboe again, but it just would take so much effort and time to get back up to a decent level, and I don't have it in me right now.

Listening to the soloists made me think about the human voice as an instrument. I feel like the training tries to strip most of the individual character out of the voice, or maybe it's just that only certain types of voices are encouraged into classical training? I really don't like sopranos; they are too shrill and hurt my ears. I know I'm uneducated, but the unpleasantness kind of makes me want to stay ignorant.

I've also been thinking about how young kids are tracked into competitive performance. There was someone on the HC forums whose daughter showed a talent for gymnastics around 6, so her parents were encouraged to put her on the competitive track. They resisted because they didn't want her to have body image issues, she was already pretty tall so would probably not cut it at an elite level, the local coaches had a harsh reputation, etc. My opinion on this decision is a whole other post.

Anyway, music is much the same way. The elite violinists and pianists mostly start at a very early age, like 4. My kiddo and I make up songs and he messes around with his harmonica and recorder (my recorder from second grade) and a cheap little keyboard my mother-in-law gave him, but I've never done anything approaching formal education with him.

Now I'm thinking maybe I should? He's so quick to pick up languages and skills and ideas, I feel like I should strike while the iron is hot. We've been good about exposing him to a lot of different activities, but for some reason, music has not been really one of them. Odd, considering that I've got a lot of resources for it.

When I was a kid, I definitely had the opinion that if you weren't at the elite level by the time you were a teenager, that 1) you were never going to make it, and 2) you might as well stop trying if you weren't elite. I had a friend who was a figure skater, and I always wondered why she was still competing if she wasn't Olympic caliber.

Now that I'm a parent, channeling a child into a sport or other pursuit at an early age seems so weird. They're just kids, for crying out loud. They have their whole lives to enjoy a pursuit. On the other hand, if they exhibit a talent for something, they need to get on the competitive track before they hit double digits, or else they'll never really develop their full potential.

It's a weird contrast, holding these two perspectives simultaneously.

Tags: bells, music, parenting