I don't want a Hugo

This is sort of a personal recap on the Hugo kerfuffle. From someone who's only been to the States visiting friends. So, not the same starting point of either camp.

Personal background in SF

Two basic points: I grew up with the Nebula as the professional award and the Hugo as the reader's choice. And I'm Mediterranean. Spaniard. Oh, three: I consider myself a conservative, but card carrying reds (think younger Eric Flints) disagree strongly (I am the token conservative, mostly, in most of my groups). From the barricades and even when they have to carry one of their own to the ER because a trailer truck decided to run him over (I do hope the jerk gets to be a ward of the state). Anyhow, US and European left/right axis are not equivalent (#).

Then, some more personal background. I used to read books published by most of the SF imprints. DAW, Tor, Baen... I switched from those translated to Spanish to original English (mostly, paperbacks) in the mid 90s, simply because it was much cheaper, even at the costs of the dollar and S&H back then. While I did have some extra trouble finding things I liked (the main Spanish editor was good and I had to retrain my choices), I didn't think much of it for a while.

Then I discovered Webscriptions, currently Baen Ebooks. 4 bucks a book, I believe, back then, and... no S&H costs! Plus, I was already using Linux. Open formats were a must if I wanted to read it. For quite a while I bought Baen or hardcopy. Several hundred books of Baen. If I wasn't the only one (and I wasn't) it does explain things [+]. I recall I had to get a Gold credit card because, back then, standard issue didn't cover e-commerce.

Now, another personal note: I'm mostly "blind" to character descriptions. I didn't realize the love interest in Memory, Sorrow and Thorn was black haired (she was, right?) until sometime in the 4th book; I don't think I'd have realized Simon was redhaired if he wasn't on the cover. Didn't realize Tabitha Jute was black until I read an interview on book covers well after I'd read the book. I got that a tad earlier with Parable of the Sower, I think about the time she pairs up with Morgan Freeman (yes, that's my image and I'm sticking to it). This means a lot of the diversity ruckus goes way over my head: my image of the characters stems from what they DO, not their physical description. Yes, that's influenced by the local equivalent of a WASP background and a much lower immigration that the States. Much, much lower. Also, surnames don't mean much to me. I don't get that "he's called Rodriguez, so he must be Latino." Different backgrounds, and really bad name memory. Plus, single-surname standards can't be trusted. I can't tell you the name of the main character of a book I finished not 12 hours before. She was Russian, but I can't say much more (tall, short; willowy... I think, sort of... I think her hair color was reddish; and pale, but she's a vamp). I recall Murphy (Dresden series) is short; no idea of any other of the characters (although I picture Charity Carpenter as Molly Weasley). I think I've seen her painted in dark, long hair; I don't know if it's accurate... My basic template for a SF/F character is "white, American standard, one each"; last night I kept putting a black cop in that story above with the face of Sean Connery in The Untouchables; black cops are plainclothes, and usually inspectors (21st Jump Street). And the whole US (do recall I am not from the States) fascination with race is... weird. A fourth of this and an eighth of that? Really weird. Who cares?

You get the idea. This has a side effect: if you put an Eastern character, I won't peg him as such unless there's a lot more to it (Mongol tribes, or sharp daisho, or miles and miles of desert, or...). Said otherwise: "token diversity" is meaningless, to me; I don't even see it.

Another thing. Check this. Any Spaniard who went through high school until the mid 90s (and I'd have to check the current syllabus; might still be there) was exposed to that. Quevedo vs. Góngora. Culteranismo and Conceptismo. Quevedo, by the way, is the guy in Flint's 1632 series, in Rome.

Góngora should have been strangled at birth. Historians might disagree, but high school students won't. Insufferably florid vapor.

SF and me these last years

Now, rewind a couple of years. I was weaning myself off Tor and Scalzi, both of which I'd followed a lot. You can find why in some earlier posts. Also, Penguin, but that's not related to SF, in my case. Regarding Tor and Scalzi, I got fed up with "my way or the highway and, BTW, the way is now MUCH narrower that last week" and insults to readers who didn't agree with the topic du jour.

I think I actually landed on Correia's blog thanks to Scalzi. Unsure. And I think I got wind of the puppies just before he started with the second one. Again, not sure.

The thing is, what he was saying about SF being more and more limited rang a bell. I didn't much care about the "left wing" "conspiracy", although it matched with my Spanish experience [*]. More on that later.

But there was something I believed in.

Look, I have right in front of me a recent book. Palmatier's Shattering the Ley. Big megacorp style dictatorship government ruins the ecology overusing natural energy resources and a bunch of small fry try to rig a solution while everything collapses.

I enjoyed it. Why? The ecological message? Nope. The revolution? Neither. The female character? No. The fact it implied, here and there, that the locale was somewhere near home? Not at all (too little, too late, and I don't really care). Two reasons: worldbuilding and adventure.

Could tell you similar things about some books I got from Baen's shop, including some by Kameron Hurley (not exactly a Puppy defender; my only gripe with her trilogy is that there's not enough... call it hope).

The Hugo Awards

What I believe in, what got me to follow Correia's thread, is that fiction should be entertaining. I believe that this was in Correia's posts last year. That the publishing establishment was throttling entertaining voices because they didn't reflect their perceptions (not enough anguish, or too many whites, or... Yes, linked to "leftist staff", as if it were any better when it's done by right wingers; see my footnotes).

This seems to be troubling when Correia says it, but Eric Flint's been saying the same, with different words. Yes, he assures us it's not a conspiracy, it's only the intelligentsia publishing what it cares about and praising its own while shutting the rest out. I fail to see how that makes any difference to the reader (or to the writer who doesn't get published). Also... well, publishers have been under trial for conspiracy (yes, Apple), so I would be wary of them. Also... that would mean big publishers are missing at least about half their potential readers. Which is, of course, one of the reasons for indies (and Baen).

Mind you, it's an antiquated... establishment. We're talking publishing. Unless the Hugos start going to small presses and indies, they'll become the SF Publisher's Association Awards. Which shall make them meaningless. Sort of a crippled Nebula. Flint insists that's the normal result of literary awards. Even though the Hugo is a fan award? Maybe. The normal result of life is death, but that doesn't mean we should sterilize ourselves, much less our kids.

I also believe that the "you could have won if it wasn't for your supporters" meme is astoundingly daft. If those "no award" votes were really there to punish someone who were not those writers themselves, then the whole thing has put the fandom in the thug business. "Don't rock us or something will happen to your friends". Also, the way Voxdemort acts, he might as well start proposing, say, Wil Wheaton for the Hugos. Or Joss Whedon.

My overall point? That there's a strong tendency by those in the publishing industry to steer the prize. A prize that's supposed to be the reader's. Of course, we've seen here and there how quite a lot of writers consider readers (Preston et al, basically, and the diatribes from some publisher's blogs; also, Kloos, for different reasons). A reader's prize under control is meaningless.

And, yes, BOTH sides are guilty of this. Your point? And do please stop that "our side won... the other side is responsible for what happens next". Yes. BOTH EFFING SIDES. If you win, you have shown power. With power comes responsibility. Own. Up. If you won, work for it.

Personally, I'm upset, in the British sense, that the WorldCon fandom can throw some people under the bus because someone else nominated them. "Without asking for their permission", that of the nominees. Sorry. What!? Do you have to ask awardees for such things? Really!? The uncritical thinking of that utterance is unbelievable.

And that it pretends to be True Fandom... Please. I know professional producers who LOVE F/SF but have never stepped into a WorldCon... Nor do I think they will, as things stand now. One of them is one of those card-carrying picketers above. So much for "right wing".

But, no. I'm going to erase anything that I can link to the puppies from the following list (no Baen works, just in case; certainly no Castaglia). I'm also going to skip "Fan-this" Still "No Award" is "better" than...

• Jim Butcher
• Kevin J. Anderson
• Analog. Four times
• Card's IGMS
• Galaxy's Edge
• Lou Antonelli
• Carter Reid
• Mike Resnick
• Jennifer Brozek
• Bryan Thomas Schmid
• Sheila Gilbert
• Anne Sowards
• Jim Minz
• Kirk DouPonce
• Alan Pollack
• Nick Greenwood
• Carter Reid
• Abyss & Apex
• Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine

There are a lot of those names I've never read. Some others I don't like. Even some I have an aversion to. Doesn't matter.

"No award" is preferable to Kevin J. Anderson, Mike Resnick, Jim Butcher, Analog (no matter how hard it tries)...

With an attitude like that, Asimov would have been writing romance. Le Guin would have been told "you need to get other people to nominate you".

Take care.

(#) Which leads, for example, to the "Nazism is leftie" meme... and B/W pics of the British royals practicing the salute, 'coz they're known commie sympathizers. My ass.

(+) Basically, I've been told (by people very far from the puppies) that "if you want to sell, go Baen".

(*) Which is usually "right wing". But then, neither is what it pretends. It's more "publishing establishment, runny maroon" than red or blue. Fandom properly was maybe more in a similar L-R divide, if you squint enough. My memory is mixing things, so I'll stop here. Plus... The Spanish fandom might have been about a hundred people. Really not important.

Publishing women

There's a new batch of "women can't publish" articles. As far as I can see, this one started with a writer's experiment submitting under a pseudonym and escalated from here. Kris Rusch' project on SFalso added some "oomph" to it, in certain circles.

Now, are women promoted less? I can see that, although I have problem seeing how midlisters can be promoted any less than they are. There are few women best-sellers, anyhow.

But let's keep a modicum of rigor, please. Dropping "J K Rowling masculinized her name" needs an explanation (specially since that bit was written in a non-English language op/ed without a tradition for initialising names). Saying "women have trouble publishing"...

...is only true if you think they're technologically illiterate. KDP, from manuscript to worldwide publication in 10 minutes, if that, and a 2-day delay for wordwide distro. So what if Penguin or the rest of BPH don't publish? Youcan. And if you let corporations rob you of your agency you can't come claiming you're a feminist. Not with a shred of credibility.

Take care

Virtue isn't contagious

I refuse to link to the original article, but... behold.

You need a very special kind of jerk to come to someone and say "fuck your birthday!". Yes, I know. Amazon is not a person. Tell that to the guy at Salon. The whiner at Salon.

He makes 5 points: the decline of bookstores, working conditions at amazon, killing the writing professions, the conditions of publishers, and its dominance.

A bunch of those are lies and misrepresentations. I'm not any sort of a special reader, and yet I know, from Spain, a good share of those 2000 indie writers he claims are left, from a max of 4000.

Oh... indie bookshops. Sorry. You mean the ones that are resurfacing now that B&N is no longer pushing them into the gutter? Up 25% in five years? Those indies?[*] Gotcha, thanks.

The way it treats workers... Can we please check on those jobs at printers that the Big V so placidly offshore to China? Pretty please? I don't pretend Amazon's warehouses are a gift from Heaven, but do please let's apply the same standards. If you want to reference "temperatures approaching 115 degree" then let's start with foundries. At it does require a very specific kind of blindnes to complain that your work has ambulances on attendance. Do try that at the next concert tour, would you?

The way it attacks writers? My ass! My choice of writers has sky rocketed in these last few years alone. About Hachette... Well, I've written about those before.

Has amazon affected small publishers? Yes. Some for the worse? Yes. Specially those who had low margins. The reference to Europe is weird, since a godly share of it has fixed price for books. And monopsony...? Well, it isn't illegal. Compare that with cartels and price fixing. And Apple.

ONE of those five points, a SINGLE one, reflects on amazon and writers. The rest is a school of red herring. And even the way he starts with indies (bookshops) and then redirects to Hachette (pubisher) is quirky. The rest are mentioned in a sort of virtue by association. "Writers are Godly, anything that touches their industry is virtuous by association... As long as it's not Amazon or the Rebel Alliance of writers. Or annoying readers".

No, it doesn't work that way. The Big V are the ones who helped B&N kill the indies. Amazon's dominance stems in a huge part from the hurdles that Big V and friends STILL put to comfortable e-reading. Big V employees (Hachette writers, Tor designers...) have been insulting readers for a while in their pursuit of some sort of ideological dominance. Publishers are using low-maintenance interns to check on writers output (not at 115 degrees, I'd hope, but can I check the ergonomics of their workplace? The health of their A/C? Their wage and living expenses?)

And the parting shots on profit? It's called reinvesting, you moron! If we had more of that, maybe those last 8 years would have been a different fish. What's, say, Hachette budget for R&D? I can give you Penguin's. But no, let's chastise Amazon. Including how good it is for consumers. The horror, really. With press like that, is it any wonder that you need independents? In publishing, in news, in...

Take care.

[*] Google "independent bookshops america increase" and choose.

Kris against The Guardian

First, before anything else, I'm using her as an example. An example as untainted by previous SF fights against/for the Guardian as I could get. Kris has not prior knowledge of this.

Now, The Guardian tends to tire me sorely. British press has gone really downhill the last 20+ years. Possibly like any other national press, but with them I have the advantage of distance and familiarity. That decline is the only way you can seriously write about "The tyranny of the mega-novel", latch it onto GRR Martin (known, in the small circles where he was known before, for short fiction) and then "refute" said article with "Fantasy cannot build its imaginary worlds in short fiction" [*].

If the first article is bad, the second sets an illustrated standard.

"High fantasy of the George RR Martin kind hinges on world-building."

Not so long ago, this very sentence, and the ideas of the first article too, would have been used almost exactly, simply naming JRR Tolkien. That's the power of the double-R.

But, to put an example, I've only read the short novellas in the world of A song of Ice and Fire (aka. Game of Thrones), and the world came brilliantly. One of the examples in the article is Harry Potter. Who creates the whole world by chapter 7. The rest is commentary. Great commentary, but, nonetheless.

Also, those examples show several glitches. One is that the world does not need as many pages as it hosts. Lord of the Rings is 6 books, yes, but it does not need them all to worldbuild. If I wrote 20 more books in that world, it wouldn't suddenly need 26 of them to set the background.

It's called background for a reason. By the same token, you could say a novel takes so-and-so many pages because it can't describe its characters in less.

So... Kris.

I have the hardcopy version of "Broken Windchimes" right in front of me. 87 pages of fiction, in booklet form. It doesn't build its world any less than a multi-saga. It explores that world less, but it's built.

Or I could get into the Retrieval artist world. It's built in the first novella. Sure, it keeps adding. A child's "built" in nine months; the rest is called growing.

But there's a specific blindness in those articles, still.

Readers. And off-Broadway productions. Sorry, off-Manhattan and wherever publishers are set in the UK.

These days "The tyranny of..." doesn't apply. Writers are myriad; publishers, Legion. Readers... we are like locusts. If YOU can't find anything besides mega-sagas, the only tyranny is inside your head. The rest of us are reading (writing) lots of other things. If your pet publishers don't put those things forward it's not the fault of short stories, novels, the genre or anything else that you can't see them.

Take care. [*] Search them yourself. They're crap. So not linking to that.

The customer is the market

[UPDATE AT BOTTOM]I like going to market. Not "the grocer" or "the mall". Think something similar to Borough Market (London, UK). I was raised going to market, I'm raising my kid... It develops a certain sensibility of the relationship between seller and customer.

My father went from travelling salesman to co-CEO of a mid-sized business during some of the worst crises in Spanish history, current one included. I learned certain ideas of capitalism on his knees.

I've said before that bookselling seems to piss on both, customer relationships and capitalism. It's not the only one.

You see, my market experience and my awareness of small and mid-sized businesses makes me try to buy local, makes me glad every time I find a local business for something I used to call from far away. And yet, I keep doing it less and less.

Why?

Last year, about this time, several hatchet men were joining voices to raise the prices I paid for my books. Some months earlier, several bloggers at a SF imprint’s site were both insulting anything out of their experience and saying "my way or the highway"; my answer to that kind of rhetoric has been predictable since... forever.

This autumn I kept trying to tell several writers that keeping exclusivity on Amazon was not sensible. I was discarded, unimportant, a nuisance of an anecdote. My reaction was about that, yes. So was, probably, the one that scores of readers had after searching those books to no avail.

Some days ago I tried to reach a fountain pen store through email; it's maybe a third of a mile from home. I explained them I'd been a fountain pen user and I wanted to get back on the horse. Their first answer directed me to the website (which I had already told him I'd visited), their reply to my further questioning is yet to arrive...

This Christmas I was searching for some whisky rocks, at an "off-license" shop [*] maybe 200 yards from my own door. It was Christmas, so some delay was understandable. Yet, I insisted after that... and I'm still waiting. Well, no; waiting no more. Haven't bought him a beer since.

A friend had the same happen with knives. He had to buy some Spanish knives, a specific kind of knife and a grinding wheel (Spanish brand) at foreign suppliers. Two burst of shopping, about 400 bucks, for something he spent several days searching around, finding problems everywhere.

But markets dwindle. I was talking with a butcher last week, and when the refurbished market opens, there will be about a fourth of the butchers that were there when he started, about half the number that were five years ago.

Fountain pen users are not getting any younger, but, sure, please do alienate returning customers, much less new ones.

And, guys, don't think for a second this does not apply to writers. The recent Hugo ruckus made drop several writers I'd enjoyed, made me recover one (kudos to Mrs. Kowal). And yet, some writers insist on pampering their publishers, on being gross to some abstract group of readers, not realizing that readers are everywhere, that they don't often match their perception, and that... we can go somewhere else.

And people still wonder if the SF market is diminishing. That of the Big Names? Sure. But small publishers are everywhere, Kris Rusch is publishing a long novel a month... in a specific series, above and beyond her normal, and smaller similar stories are everywhere. Published from a garage, sold through amazon, while the Big Names in publishing and bookshops falter.

Don't put hurdles in your customers' path.

Don't insult your customer.

Is it eally that difficult?

Take care.

[*] It works different, here, but the idea is about that.

UPDATE: Got the pens through amazon-ES and Fontoplumo, a Netherlander site. A place that sells fountain pens a sneeze short of 7000 €, but also in the teen-range, plus inks and notebooks. A place whose caretaker sent me a personal email warning me that Monday is a national holiday for them and the post is going to be delayed. And a slight discount for future orders. I can assure you I didn't buy anything in the high price range. And, yet, I got customer service. Compare.

Hugos

Yes. Yet another.

I'm going to try my best to give my thoughts about those. From the POV of someone who hasn't (yet) read most of the work, or who doesn't much care for American politics. Not my country, not my starting assumptions. I can love Spinrad's A World Between and certain Michael Z. Williamson's Freehold. Or Drowning Towers, by George Turner and works by John Ringo (we shall not mention the last Paladin of Shadows, though).

Now, in general, there's a lack of information around the Hugos that's biting SF in the ass. With poison and serrated teeth. Specially as it receives increased eyeballs. For example, if the Campbell Award for new writers is for writers who've first published professionally in the last two years, and there's a prize in the Hugos for essay, how come Eric S. Raymond is in the slot? The Cathedral and the Bazaar, 1997. And others after that. Or, why are markets that qualify for pro status in the SFWA labelled as "semipro"? How some writers could indie-pub things in the past and have them in the ballot following the year these were published "professionally" and yet have the same denied to Wright's novelette. I can think of legit reasons for all these, but they should be explained. Publicly, in the same web page as the Hugos. If they're not explained, it harms the image of the Hugos. Again.

So, I'm not much into this years nominations. Likely in part because both puppies went either too wide (I might have proposed Butcher... and it would have been difficult: I don't touch Hachette) or too narrow (I don't touch Vox). Mind you, we better get used to that. The comfort (heh!) of previous issues is gone. Either forget about awards anything similar to what they are (close them or let them be controlled by rabid dogs) or open them far and wide (as I understand it, the original purpose of the Sad Ones); but if you open them far and wide, if you really do, be prepared for surprises. Because people you don't know will be entering in droves. [*]

Don't close up, guys. Hachette did. Traditional publishing has. And it's a shadow of what it used to be. Myself, these days, hardly read any "big" house books. Certainly, beware of insulting your own readers, you dolts! Saying some things because that's what the publishers' side is saying is silly. You can ditch your publisher (go indie, if everything else fails), but you can't ditch your readers!

Now, more specific:

Novel

I haven't read any of those. I haven't bought Hachette or Tor for quite a while, as explained above. I can't see any reason for the "No award!" cry, though. First, because both houses have pretty solid SF histories. Second... well, Leckie has a pretty hefty award density. Kevin J. Anderson... I mean, Kevin J. Anderson, guys! That's like doubting Resnick, Brackett, Rusch... [+] Butcher... I rather prefer his earlier books, but I'll likely enjoy this one. The other two? A mixed race up for king having troubles? A Chinese work? Call the Genrish Inquisition! These are... What? WASP?

Also, I think Kloos is seriously mistaken. The award is not decided by a certain MENSA-proud loudmouth (Voldemort; it's shorter than He-Whom-I-Won't-Name). It's decided by the fans. It's rich that someone who writes about Valor awards can't realize that. A bit like a soldier dismissing an award because he doesn't like the officer who signs the recommendation. Don't. Ditch. Readers.

Novella

Kratman: I usually (not always) enjoy him. Yes, he's uncomfortable. Your point? Or you find Spinrad or Turner a balm? I don't know a thing about Arlan Andrews or his work. Analog's a solid name, though.

John C Wright: Okay... I think I've read something by him, in some shared anthology. Can't tell what, right now. I don't like several blog posts of his, though. And... Okay. A nomination per category, I could understand. Three in a single one? Bad taste, man. 3? Really? TV series have the excuse of having different staff in different episodes. What's his? Besides bad tactics, I mean. I think Trek renounced an option in the 90s to increase the exposure of the other candidate. I personally think these situations should be merged.

Novelette

Analog in triplicate. Should be good. The name has heft. About the same regarding IGMS, even if I consider Card a liability (those declarations just before the premiere? Really? Couldn't he wait?) Lightspeed, about same. Plus, the magazine has a certain cred for minorities. I don't share that view, but it should protect it from certain kinds of fallout.

Now, Wright, the same one I mentioned above, was discarded on a technicality. I wouldn't have had a problem with this nomination. It's a different category. I am having problems about the way it was discarded, since it's not coherent with previous experiences. It should be clarified publicly.

Short story

By and large, the same as with Analog above.

However... How exactly a group decrying the "WASP-ness" and general ISM-ness of certain proposals finds the gall to push a lesbian off the list escapes me.

Related work

Hey! This time I've actually sort of read a couple. The one in Baen's site and, likely, some of MZW's writings. The rest, see the previous two.

Comic

Sorry, "graphic novel". Yes, sure. You just saw why there are more people at ComicCon. Pretentious will get you so far, not an inch further.

Rat Queens, kickass women by an artist with a lesbian BDSM comic, a paranormal romance, an epic fantasy... I don't see why there should be a problem with this one, unless some people don't want to be reminded about Croatia and the mess the West did there. But you certainly can't accuse him of cisthis or WASPthat. I don't know about the rest, but they look solid.

Film

Long this and that. On a glance, the most widely represented roster. A hard SF story (Interstellar), a not-so-hard adventure (Edge of Tomorrow) with time travel. Lego... raises an eyebrow, but I haven't seen it. Will have to, I suppose. Captain America is about as SF as James Bond, I'd say.

Guardians of the Galaxy? Monte Cook's Planescape. Enough said.

I strongly dislike Cruise and anything related to Hubbard's bastard child. This doesn't mean I'm going to (try to) boycott the film.

TV episode

As before, but short.

Doctor Who. If you have troubles with that, you're reading the wrong guy. Flash... I didn't really enjoy it that much, but origin stories are usually pretty SFish, even if sometimes a tad soft. Thrones... Haven't seen it. Personal issue about unfinished sagas (Wheel of Time, anyone?). Grimm and Orphan look interesting.

Editor, shorts

In general, I don't know squat about them. Also... No WMG? Fiction River, guys! [#]

Artists

See above. I'll recognize some work, because some names ring a bell, but my brain and names are out of phase.

Semipro zine

I see no reason against them, but that they are classified as "semi" pro is an insult all the way around. See the introduction to this post.

Fanzine

I really don't have the foggiest idea.

Fancast

See above. I don't really like the medium.

Fan writer

Okay... Why? Why is a certain quantity of sales in self-publishing enough for entry into the SFWA and yet those same sales put you in the "Fan writer" slot? Since this ruckus about the Hugos is possibly going to imply a revision, I'd suggest looking into things like that. Or "semipro" magazines, or time limits, or PR, or... Guys, it's so broken it ain't funny, and yet you keep pointing at the upset uncle and the rude in-law.

Fan artist

Will have to look deeper. At least one looks a tad too professional for my taste and my understanding of the category.

Campbell

Eric. S. Raymond.

Really?

Cordova? New?

We'll see if I actually like them. I really don't know. However, what I can't see are reasons to dispute this is SF/F. Or even to argue that most of the candidates are some sort of Adolf Khan. I can argue some classifications, some ideas. But the rage against those works is, at the very best, misdirected. Also, childish.

Take care.

[*] An aside, but related. I recall when the Spanish SF fandom had trouble WRT that. On one hand "we're always the same ones, we're not enough...", but on the other, any suggestion to open up to manga or TCGs was a heresy. Even trekkies were barely "in". Fivers were a weird... subset of Trek, almost. Considering one of those against heresy was the original distributor of Magic, the Gathering in Spain... (Nicknamed, adequately enough, The Pope). While numbers are inflated, the local ComicCon has about three figures over the SF Con.

[+] Sigh... Been done, has it not? Sorry. Not US. I didn't recall that. It does illustrate my point in more ways than I could wish, though.

[#] Next year I'm going to push for the Anniversary Day series, I warn you.

Luxury and the price of the commercial artisan

I was with some friends for Palm Sunday. We had some fun times, and we checked, among other things and mostly for the fun of it, Montblanc fountain pens and knives (we did have to buy some kitchen knives, but we explored some extra).

I kept some of that exploring at home, from the computer, and something has been bothering me.

We've lost the core idea of craftmanship. You see, when I was a late teen, the core Montblanc pen was about 100€. These days, it's about six times that. That's not inflation. It's the price handmade fountain pens are sold at.

There are similar differences in knives, but this will do.

We've reached a point where a demi-luxury brand (because there are way more luxurious things than the basic Montblanc), machine made, thinks it's worth the same than the artisan (maybe machine helped but still artisan) producer.

When an ebook is priced in the high teens and pundits defend the agency price and the uniqueness of Books written by Snooki while artisans, indies, price their books reasonably and, from obscure sites, sell about as much.

Being out of touch can hurt.

Take care.