Another site I just heard about today is Canadian writer Mary W. Walters’ new initiative to research the best options for effective book promotion by writers themselves. Her website is below.

http://maryww.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/sell-that-book-building-a-promotional-campaign-from-the-ground-up-1/

Together, we can share resources, build community, beat a path to our readers and vice versa.

Cheers,

Sarah

Thanks to members of the Toronto Women Writers’ Salon, who first brought this awesome project to my attention.

A special thanks to Laure Baudot http://pregnantladydoeskarate.com/ who tagged me, and whose novel, The Proxy Bride, was recently published by Quattro Books.

Here’s what I’m working on now:

What is the working title of your book?

I’m thinking Horse.

Where did the idea for the book come from?

Four years ago, in my mid-fifties, I fell ill. I promised myself that, when I recovered, I would fulfill my lifelong dream and seriously start running after horses. On my feet again, I booked my first riding lesson in about 28 years. Down the rabbit hole I fell, writing all the way.

What genre does your book fall under?

I’ve only ever written literary fiction but maybe this could be called Third-Act-Adventure Fiction.

Which actors would you choose to play your characters in a movie rendition?

Delicious question. Laura Dern, with her hesitant, easily dismayed yet persistent way of skirting obstacles towards her goal. My riding coach would be Helen Mirren.

What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book?

A middle-aged city woman, obsessed with horses and eager to sample a simpler, country life, discovers in the barn of women riders she joins, that the horsey world is anything but simple.

Will your book be self-published or represented by an agency?

I will likely agent it myself in Canada and my American agent, Don Fehr, at Trident Media would represent me abroad.

How long did it take you to write the first draft of your manuscript?

Still actively drafting it, but 2 years so far.

What other books would you compare this story to, within your genre?

There are numerous biographies about women and horses. This novel will focus on the community my narrator encounters and her initiation into it. My inspirations are always fiction writers and currently, novelist Ali Smith inspires me massively. One nonfiction inspiration currently, is Terrence Real, whose insight into relationship politics is wisdom-riddled.

Who or what inspired you to write this book?

Once I realised this passion was not short-lived, I knew I was in for it. I began carrying tiny notebooks to and from the barn. The intensity of my emotional life around riding and competing was too rich a source to ignore. My lifemate, The Bolt, also assured me that my obsession with horses would be of interest to others of my kind.

What else about your book might pique your reader’s interest?

Any woman who has experienced icy physical fear, humbling ineptitude, ecstatic exhilaration riding a loping, well-broke horse, an insatiable itch to escape her own life into another, would enjoy this book. It’s also about the psychology of being coached in a competitive sport, working with a powerful prey animal, and a stranger slipping inside another world through a slender crack.

Thanks for reading. Now over to some of my colleagues, some amazing writers. I hope you visit their blogs (links to come) too.

Power of We.

The Power of We is a celebration of people working together to make a positive difference in the world, either for their own communities or for people they will never meet half way around the world.
The union launched Pay the Writer to fight for writers in the digital age. NWU wanted to use Blog Action Day to talk about why this campaign is so critical. Working writers are struggling and it will take the Power of We to turn things around. For more please visit NWU’s site:
— http://paythewriter.org/the-power-of-we/
Please feel free to add your own voice.
Here’s mine:

The Power of We has never been so exciting for writers.

We-power is carrying our writing out into the readerplace.

 We-word-of-mouth, We-publishing, We-networking.

Me is one thin voice. We can carry across the world.

I therefore highly recommend this route for writers who have been lucky/wise enough to hold onto their ebook rights to their work. Currently, Kobo is offering 80% of the ebook sales revenue to the writers. They will revert to their regular 70/30 percentage on December 1st, 2012.

Disclaimer

I am not a shareholder of Kobo or an employee. I am a seeker of DIY ebook-selling platforms. Kobo has made this first step pretty darn easy. I’ll let you know how it goes — and whether I actually make some money.

Because Seraphim is a small literary press and ebooks are not its thing yet, I have the publisher’s blessing to create and upload the ebook version myself. I am looking at various merch’ing websites from which the ebook can be securely turnstiled and its DRM safeguarded. Revenue will be deposited directly into my bank account. Happy dreams ensue …

I will only be offering this ebook in Canada for now. My first choice of e-merchant right now is Kobo — followed by Amazon.ca. Kobo’s self-publishing ebookshelf  (toggle Writing Life) offers a most agreeable 80/20 split in revenue favouring the writer. Kobo is making all sorts of friendly gestures to help writers hop aboard the ebook express. It feels good to support a Canadian company.

For those of you contemplating doing this yourselves … step one: apply for your own ISBN publisher’s suffix number and stack of ten assignable numbers. This process takes 10 days. Ten seems to be the magic number here.

I found the website http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ciss curiously hard to navigate but you may not. It’s ridiculously satisfying to get those numbers and contemplate assigning them to actual ebooks you will now go forth and publish.

I may break down in frustration before I actually get aboard but today feels golden. Onward now to create an e-Table of Contents for a novel born without one.

— a panel discussion

North York CentraL Library 5120 Yonge Street, Toronto (at Sheppard)

Thursday, April 14th 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

This free public forum will feature a discussion with authors Sarah Sheard, Susan Swan, John Degen, (also in his role as the Literature Officer at the OAC) and book promotion and marketing wiz, Deanna McFadden of Harper Collins Canada. Moderated by writer-in-residence, Elizabeth Ruth. The Changing Book panel will discuss and reflect upon e-revolution in books – the impact of new technologies on readers, writers, libraries, booksellers, publishers and the stories that get told.

Questions may include: how might writers find creative ways to promote and sell their works in this new digital age? How will e-reading change our concept of narrative? Is it still a book if you’re not holding its spine in your hands? Does that matter? What’s the role for traditional book publishers? What’s the difference between a writer and a ‘content creator’? What’s the impact on personal histories, of a virtual library? Really, the questions are endless. We hope you’ll join in with some of your own.

For more info please visit the website of the Toronto Public Library and search under writer-in-residence. Please spread the word to readers and writers.

Here’s the location: North York Central Library

5120 Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue. Located on west side of Yonge Street on the north side of Mel Lastman Square beside the North York Civic Centre.
Public Transit: TTC subway station North York Centre. Walk to library located in the mall.
Parking: Paid – parking lot on Beecroft Road, meter parking on side streets, paid parking lots in vicinity and underground

Information: 416-395-5535

After seven years of Google digitizing books without the consent of the copyright holders, the only point that is clear is that the efforts of three parties – Google, the Authors Guild (AG) and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) – to resolve the many issues involved were totally unsuccessful and left most matters yet to be decided, added Goldbetter. NWU hopes that any future settlement talks will include other writers’ groups like the NWU in addition to the Authors Guild, which, according to the judge, may have “antagonistic interests” with at least certain other writers. (Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 05 CIV 8136 (DC 2011), p. 20. “NWU looks forward to hearing from Google, AAP and AG about how they plan to broaden the negotiations to include all those who offered substantive objections to the settlement,” stated Goldbetter.

NWU agrees with Judge Chin’s determination that certain matters covered by the proposed settlement should properly be decided by Congress, not the courts. The judge included in that category so-called “orphan works,” books whose copyright holders are not easily ascertained, and rights of foreign authors and publishers, who expressed strong objections to the settlement.

NWU would add to the list for Congressional action the creation of a nationwide, publicly funded digital library, which the settlement sought to place in the hands of Google and unnamed, privately appointed representatives of AG and the AAP. NWU believes in general that Congress is better placed than the courts to protect authors against the kind of wholesale commercial piracy undertaken by Google. NWU notes that the proposed settlement and Judge Chin’s opinion did not deal with the inherent conflict between publishers and authors over control of copyrighted books, a matter that should be addressed in sorely needed copyright reform legislation. As Judge Chin noted, citing a 25-year-old Supreme Court decision, it is “Congress’s responsibility to adapt the copyright laws in response to changes in technology.” (Authors Guild, p. 23)

“Whether in renewed and expanded settlement discussions or in Congress or both,” Goldbetter stated, “the National Writers Union looks forward to working with our litigation partners, the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, to assure that the rights of writers to their works are fully and fairly protected.”

To visit National Writers Union click: http://www.nwu.org/

Notes on acronyms: TWUC = The Writers’ Union of Canada. The amended settlement’s acronym is ASA (Amended Settlement Agreement.) For simplicity we will refer to all versions as the Google Book Settlement (GBS).

WHAT TWUC SAID versus WHAT THE COURT DECIDED

I took a quick look at Judge Denny Chin’s judgment, alongside TWUC’s objections, and found that TWUC did not have much to do with his decision.  Our brief, on the other hand, did.   Here are the three documents:

Chin: http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/opinion.pdf

TWUC: http://thepublicindex.org/docs/objections/wuc.pdf

CWAG: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/961/

So, let us remind ourselves of TWUC’s official views of the Google Book Settlement,  compared with what Judge Chin thought of it.

Chin was first and foremost concerned that the GBS would create a virtual online publishing monopoly that would exclude competition.  He cited the anti-trust objections of the Department of Justice.  At the very least, he pointed out that the settlement  “would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission.”  TWUC was silent on this.

Chin concluded that the settlement “is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation.”  TWUC, however, wrote: ““We do object to certain aspects of the settlement, and request that it be modified to address these issues”.  In other words, TWUC never questioned the fundamental legitimacy of the settlement.

Chin did not like the “opt-out” provisions of the settlement, whereby Google has the right use your work unless you ask them not to:  “…many of the concerns raised in the objections would be ameliorated if the (GBS)  were converted from an opt-out settlement to an opt-in settlement.”  While asking for certain concessions regarding the time frame for removing works from view, TWUC did not actively disapprove of the “opt-out” principle in itself.

Chin had very serious questions about the right of the Authors Guild plaintiffs to represent all authors,  and also cited the number of objectors, noting that “the number and vociferousness of the objectors is a factor to consider in weighing reasonableness of proposed settlement”. On the other hand,  TWUC never questioned the right of the Authors Guild to speak for TWUC members.

Chin regarded all of Google’s digitizing as an infringement but most important (as noted above) he concluded that future sales based even on past infringement are not allowable.  On the other hand, TWUC did not object to Google using material digitized before 2009, so its objection to digitizing after that date seems pretty lame to me.   But the point to remember is this:  Chin did not care when the material was digitized, he cared about Google making money off it.

Chin was concerned about objections that the GBS violates international law.  TWUC agreed with that, which seems encouraging at first read-through.  What is not encouraging, however, is that TWUC still wanted to be part of the settlement and to allow the Authors Guild to speak for them.   This is a pretty fundamental contradiction. Chin thought that the problem of orphan works should be dealt with by Congress.  TWUC also had that position, which is good.  However, TWUC did not seem to realize that this would make the GBS into a creature completely unlike itself, and would be tantamount to demanding that the settlement be rejected.  When this suggestion was ignored in GBS 2.0, it should logically have triggered a demand from TWUC to reject the settlement.

TWUC keeps trying to justify its non-position by claiming it wanted its members to have a “choice” about opting in or opting out.  This claim is not true. In at least one letter to members, TWUC found it worthwhile to point out that no members of National Council had opted out, and the impression of TWUC members is that the TWUC executive and council supported the settlement, however reluctantly.  As noted above, Chin regarded the sheer number of objections and opt-outs as significant.   TWUC could easily have tipped the balance and saved us a lot of trouble.

In short, TWUC never demanded rejection of settlement 2.0 (despite the Quill & Quire headline “TWUC rejects amended Google settlement”  http://www.quillandquire.com/google/article.cfm?article_id=11007 All TWUC did was refuse to endorse it.  And that weakly negative stance was invisible to the court.

I first became aware of  the New-York based National Writers’ Union (NWU) during our recent battle against the Google Book Settlement. Unlike our  Canadian unions — and the American Authors’ Guild, which brokered the Google deal — the NWU spoke up bitingly against the GBS, demonstrating an inspirational level of leadership on behalf of its members.

It is an activist union. In my view, this is what writers must have, at this time. NWU is vocal and specific about contract terms and has set high royalties for erights. They are not afraid to litigate. Their affiliation with the UAW (United Auto Workers) puts hard-line union teeth into their commitment. I contacted them to discuss how Canadian writers might participate with NWU.

Ten days ago, I  met in person with Larry Goldbetter, President, and Karen Ford, 3rd Vice President, who travelled to Canada to meet with me, writer David Bolt and Linda Page, a Canadian academic writer. We discussed how Canadian writers might join forces with NWU in order to fight together for a fair share of erights and related digital issues soon to confront all writers on this continent and elsewhere.

We agreed that digital publishing cannot be contained within geographic boundaries and will have vast implications wherever/however our writing is marketed to readers. We believe that writers can best fight for their creators’ share if they stand together, pool information and network with one another — certainly within North America. Possibly with Europe too, as we did, when we  joined with Gillian Spraggs in the U.K. in formally objecting to the Google Book Settlement.

In March, I resigned from The Writers’ Union of Canada. I do not believe it is sufficiently committed to fighting hard and smart on behalf of its members. This is a critical time for writers quickly to get savvy to the technology reshaping our livelihoods, and to put more voice into how we make our cultural contribution.

TWUC is currently searching for a new Executive Director. A steep learning curve lies ahead for whoever takes the wheel. Here’s hoping TWUC finds someone with both the passion and the steel to advance writers’ causes effectively. Meanwhile, there is no time to lose.

I am joining NWU. Its site is a model to me of what a writers’ union ought to be. At last, I thought, reading it. A real union. It is strong both in its advocacy and in its services, although it explains it is not a service organisation. Its posted Digital Bill of Rights and Campaign for Digital Rights is a passionate declaration of first principles. It will also look over contracts, patch you into a high-octane listserv of member writers across America and circulate a regular newsletter with very chewable contents.

Its membership is open to professional writers as well as to writers aspiring to break into the field. Its annual dues are scaled to earnings, starting at $120 (U.S) if your writing income is under $5000. It also offers a 6-month membership. There is no need to drop membership to other writers’ organisations in order to join NWU.

I urge you to visit their site and check it out for yourselves. I hope you will consider joining it. www.nwu.org.

United we stand.

Sarah Sheard