As the debate over self-publishing versus traditional publishing rages, authors are quietly uploading their eBooks to websites such as Free-eBooks.net, Smashwords, Kindle Direct Publishing platform, and Lulu – to name a few.
I saw an article yesterday on the Guardian UK website in which Dalya Alberge discusses Ian Rankine’s suggestion that there be tax incentives given to new writers. Traditional publishing meant for authors an upfront advance on their book’s sales. An advance from your publisher 10 years ago could probably make a sufficient dent in your mortgage. These days, it might cover one month’s rent.
It is a sign of the times – not only are there more writers, but there is more competition among publishers. Even without the myriad digital self-publishing platforms available, independent publishers have increased in number in the last few decades. Conversely, the number of independent book sellers has diminished possibly as quickly as the independent publishers have increased. This means a smaller number of outlets for distribution for publishers to make books available through.
I just borrowed my first book on Amazon with my Prime membership. The message I got once it was processed was that I can borrow again on December 1, 2011. That is just about a week away. This sounds like they enforce the one-book-per-month on the turn of the the month and not necessarily on the anniversary of the last borrow. Good to know.
There has been quite the uproar in the media lately with this lending program from Amazon. Authors and publishers claiming everything from a violation of ToS and contractual agreements to being cheated out of profits; and Amazon is practically silent in all of the furor. At least, I haven’t seen a news story yet with any comment from Amazon on the matter – have you? (Let me know in the comments if you have).
Libraries have been lending books for decades. Centuries, even. Lending books is not a new concept. People have been lending and borrowing books within book clubs and amongst their friends for as long as books could be bought. I’ve lent and borrowed [ more ]
It seems that there are more and more adaptations of novels to the screen these days. I have made the comment on occasion that adapted films feel like the creativity has gone out of Hollywood. And other cynics seem to agree with me on that point. The alternate point of view is that marketing an unknown story is just too difficult.
We have seen the phenomenal success of movies such as the Harry Potter series and the Twilight Saga and it’s hard to measure those against movies such as The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. While The Sorcerer’s Apprentice was not a bad movie per se, the responses to it seem to speak to the difference between the known and the unknown.
Clearly, if for no other reason, adapting ready-made story-lines to the screen is financially lucrative. And there doesn’t seem to be any fallout from this approach as the fans flock to see the adaptations and the debate that remakes kicks up generates even more viewers and more debate.
So, what makes a book a good candidate for adaptation?