I’ve caused an uproar. An “uproar?” I’m sitting here listening to digital crickets chirp. Where is this uproar? The breadth and width of my Twitter and Facebook and blogging universe is far, far bigger than I ever imagined, since the only posts I can launch further than a long spit out a high window are pictures of my cats licking themselves.
Anyhow, today I’m one of the subjects in Digital Book World’s column by Dana Beth Weinberg.
Not to belabor the points, smack a dead horse, etc. so I’m just posting the same answer I’ve posted at DBW. As follows:
One correction up front: my company’s name is spelled Bell Bridge Books, thanks.
As I think I’ve made clear in my blog posts and in private correspondence to Dr. Weinberg, I support her data and have followed her reports here at DBW in the past. My beef, as I’ve stated repeatedly, is with Romance Writers of America using her data in a disingenuous way at the upcoming national conference. When a topic is titled “Is there still a case to be made for traditional publishing?” and the program notes tell attendees that Dr. Weinberg will present “for and against” research about publishers, those who don’t know anything about her work will assume a negative slant. RWA has produced a dramatically skewed workshop schedule this year, in my opinion, overwhelmingly aimed at self-publishing authors and flavored with a bias against traditional publishing. The only other workshop dedicated to traditional publishing topics is titled “What good are agents?” So — with all due respect to Dr. Weinberg and her best intentions, statistics alone are often used as propaganda. Especially when presented out of context, at a workshop that does not include the publishers and agents about which she is offering conclusions. My concerns are about context and fairness. I wish Dr. Weinberg the best.