As one of the literary footnotes. But, hey, there’s my mug. I’m sure when I take over the world next week, they’ll give me headline billing on the comics page. So leave them a comment and let them know how happy you are to see my handsome fleshy head.
This last June, I stood outside Warwick Castle next to a longbowman and stared up at the massive structure. The curtain walls rose forty to fifty feet high. The great tower soared even higher—one hundred and twenty feet. But it wasn’t just the walls.
The moat. Holy schnitzel, folks, the MOAT.
On one side of the castle, the River Avon provided a barrier. On the other, a dry moat stretched forty to sixty feet wide and twenty to thirty feet deep. Standing at the bottom, you’d be staring up at seventy feet of turf and stone. That’s like staring up at a six-story building—with armed soldiers waiting at the top.
My only thought was: good night, what kind of madman would assault these defenses?
The answer, of course, is almost no one. Medieval sieges were usually about starving the defenders out, not storming the gates in a blaze of glory. Unless you had a trebuchet—which I also saw demonstrated that day.
It was the kind of moment that makes a writer’s brain spark. Assassin, the fourth book in my Drovers series, is set in the capital city of Broniss, which bristles with towers and walls of its own. Standing there at Warwick, I realized: no sane army would attack such walls directly. Which is why the High King of Osson has other dark plans.
Of course, Warwick had more than just military lessons. There was a falconry show where hawks, vultures, eagles, and even a condor soared just above our heads. Here’s a tip. If you go, sit on the benches, not under the tree. The benches are where you get the most flyovers.
There was a dungeon tour that turned into a hilarious series of skits, complete with a plague doctor and a judge who convicted one of us.
And afterward, we went into the city to a Thai place called The Giggling Squid (yes, that’s really its name). The food was amazing.
It was a glorious day, and it reminded me that some of the best research often comes from first-hand experience. Although some things—like being pierced through with a sword—I’m happy to leave to my imagination.
I’m back at the desk now, hard at work on Assassin. It’s turning into a terrific ride, and I can’t wait to share more soon.
Here’s to Ferran, Sura, and Lagash—will they foil the traitor’s plot and stop the hashida’s creature, or will Ferran and the others fail and find all their dreams dashed to pieces?
You’ll soon be able to find out.
Sincerely,
John
Amazon wants to try to replicate with digital books what Apple has done with digital music. So what has Apple done?
According to Cnet’s “iTunes reps 1 in every 4 songs“:
“iTunes-purchased songs now account for 25 percent of the overall music market–both physical and digital–in the U.S., says an NPD Group report released Tuesday.”
That may not seem like a market leader position, but in the comments one person pointed out the following.
“35% of the music sales are digital (there’s some conversion where 1 CD = 11 or 12 individual digital downloads). Apple owns 70% of the digital market. 70% of the 35% ~ 25%. So Apple has a 25% share of all music sales.”
Whoa, Nellie. That there’s what we call a cash cow. Moo-la, Baby, Moo-LA! And this becomes even more significant when you consider the fact that many think the digital part of music sales is only going to grow and grow.
According to the same set of data, TheStreet.com’s “iTunes, Wal-Mart Dominate Music Sales” reports:
Amazon accounts for only 8% of that market .
How did Apple get the head lock on such a huge portion of the digital market? It appears it has to do with the fact that Apple was first to market with a good MP3 player solution, linked that to its iTunes store, and then bundled the software in such a way as to drive and then keep people coming back to iTunes. Here are a couple of articles. I’m sure we could google dozens more.
Amazon (and many others) are forecasting digital books to become a very large part of book sales. Amazon wants to be the big banana in that space. Well, it can’t be (drum roll) the big Apple now can it?
But what does this have to do with publishers?
Amazon cannot become the big banana if nobody buys its stuff because consumers feel it’s priced too high.
So why don’t they just price it low?
Ah, there’s the peel.
In this new proposed arrangement, Amazon cedes a huge portion of its pricing control to the publisher.
But Apple’s doing that with its iPad.
It is. However, Apple already has a model and ability to sell. I think Amazon wants to make sure it keeps the low-price position because this is one of the key reasons people go to Amazon. Amazon pulls online book customers in because (listed in what I estimate is importance):
I’m assuming Amazon is worried that if it allows publishers to price their ebooks higher, then they lose one of their MAIN draws. And therefore their ability to become Big Banana.
Right now you have these distribution or supply chains:
All of them exist side-by-side. For example, Scholastic will sell books via a Barnes & Noble retailer, but they’ll also sell direct via their school book program. You can get SERVANT at Barnes & Noble or you can get it directly from Macmillan here.
Why have the middlemen?
Because middlemen bring the cost of purchasing a book WAY down. Some people don’t think that. All they see is that the retailer buys the book wholesale and then jacks up the price.
But imagine there were no Wal-Marts, Smith’s grocery, or any other kinds of stores. As a consumer you would have to go to farmer Bill for milk, travel 10 miles to farmer Jane for corn, travel another 10 miles to farmer gill for eggs, and on and on and on for the hundreds and thousands of different products we buy. Furthermore, because middlemen bring the products all together each producer has more incentive to compete on quality, value, and price.
Middlemen SAVE consumers huge amounts of time and money. That’s why we’ll always have them with us even though producers may still sell direct at the same time. And that’s why we’re willing to pay the little bit they ask for what they do.
There are two keys to making all of this middlemen business work.
First, usually only the two parties involved in any transaction control the terms of that transaction. So the publisher and wholesaler agree on a price for their transaction. The wholesaler than makes a separate agreement with the retailer. Finally, the retailer is free to make a separate agreement with the consumer. In each transaction the seller gets to control price, cut deals for high volume purchases, and, therefore control its profit.
In all cases you negotiate a price/volume mix that’s good for both parties. Sometimes this includes a flat price. Sometimes it includes price deductions for larger volumes. But in all cases it gives the producer something to count on. If a customer wants a lot of product, great, we’ll sell it to you for X price and make Z profit. If you want less, fine, we’ll sell it for Y and make Q profit.
Second, wholesalers and retailers want to control costs. They need to be able to turn around and sell your product for some profit. If you sell your stuff to someone else for a humongous discount, then that allows their competitor to charge less and potentially shift volume to them. So buyers will often try to get commitments that you aren’t going to screw them somewhere else. And sellers who value long-term relationships are willing to make such commitments.
So here’s business as it is today. A retail bookseller (Amazon, B&N, etc.) pays a fixed wholesale price for the book to the publisher. The bookseller might negotiate wholesale price breaks at different quantity levels with the publisher, but that’s a wholesale price/volume agreement that ensures certain profit levels for the publisher. As for the retailer, they maintain a different price/volume/profit control on their end with the consumers, fiddling with volume/price mixes that make sense to them. In this situation BOTH the publisher and the retailer maintain price/volume/profit control.
But this new percent-of-retail scheme decouples price from volume and forces the publisher or retailer to lose control of profit. Either Amazon or the publisher has to GIVE UP price/volume/profit control with their set of buyers.
If Amazon gets control, then it can set the retail price however it wants REGARDLESS of volume. In this situation, because wholesale price is pegged to retail price via the %, this means Amazon would dictate the wholesale price to the publisher without any regard to volume. This takes price/volume/profit control away from the publishers, putting them at the mercy of the retailer’s whims.
Scary, a total shift in the way they’re doing business. Publishers would have to budget for the worst case scenario–the lowest the retailer might charge.
However, that’s NOT what happened. In this current deal Amazon ceded its control to Macmillan, saying, okay publisher YOU set the price for my customers. This isn’t foreign to Amazon. They do this right now with used book sellers. Those folks set their own price and Amazon acts as the market place. And once Amazon says “we’re the marketplace, not the seller” then they step right out of the “hey, you’re charging too much” equation. So nobody would yell at Amazon for this move. Well, some folks would, but they’d soon figure it out. For example, nobody yells at Amazon now when used book vendors want to charge $99 for a trashy paperback. Everyone gets that Amazon is just the marketplace just as they get that Ebay is the market place.
However, in this case Amazon did want to retain some control. They said, let’s set a range of prices that are acceptable. You can charge $5.99 to $9.99 but no more or less. This would allow the publisher to sell a book for more money when it’s initially released and gradually drop the price as time goes on until we get the bargain basement price of the remainder tables. The articles I linked to in the original blog discuss this common selling practice.
Macmillan said, the miminum is great, but we actually want to start higher–$14.99.
Amazon said, no way, Dude. And the battle was on.
But why? Why did Amazon insist on that maximum? Why not just do what they already do with used book sellers and step away completely from controlling price? Wouldn’t they WANT to make more money with higher prices anyway?
Again, price directly affects volume sold which affects profit. But in this case, it’s not as much about profit but volume and market share.
The only reason that makes sense to me is what I discussed at the beginning of the article–Amazon wants to dominate the digital book space as Apples does iTunes, and they feel the must keep prices low to continue to get people coming to their Kindle store and growing their customer base. They’re hoping to spank the competition in this segment by being big first and getting all the volume–it’s the old five yards and a cloud of dust.
Big Banana. Kind of like Wal-Mart is in its segment. Kind of like Microsoft is in theirs. Kind of like Apple is with digital music.
And they obviously think $9.99 is the magic number to keep the customers pouring into their Kindle e-book world.
Isn’t $9.99 a good price for the publisher? I mean, heck, ebooks don’t use any paper, so they cost next to nothing to make, right?
Um, no.
The answer’s “no” because paper is only a part of the cost. And I’m not talking about the cost of the person who takes the Word document and converts it into PDF or Kindle or whatever the ebook format is. My kid could do that for twenty bucks.
Every product is a mix of fixed costs that don’t change with the volume you produce and variable costs which do vary. Rent, electricity, buildings, equipment, editorial, art, design, author advances, marketing, etc.–all these things can be fixed costs. It doesn’t matter if you make one book or one million. You still have the same rent, same fixed cost for artwork, same cost for editors.
So how big are those fixed costs? Based on the blogs I linked to in the original article (and if I read them correctly), the fixed costs are estimated somewhere between $7,000 and $20,000 per book. But those numbers aren’t hard numbers. For example, books that have bigger author royalities and bigger marketing budgets are going to cost more. Furthermore, because those numbers don’t have any details backing them up, I’m leery of trusting them.
But we can look at something that is public knowledge to see how this works. For example, Stephenie Meyer got $750,000 for Twilight. Most authors do NOT get that. Most get a $5,000 – $7,000 advance per book. Still it shows the fixed costs can be quite large. Meyer’s advance was a huge fixed cost that needed to be covered by each book her publisher sold.
If they sold only one book, they’d have to have charged $750,000 for it just to cover that one cost. Do you know anyone willing to pay that for a book? No. So they priced it, hoping to sell thousands. If they were to sell 750,000 copies, then that advance only cost $1 per copy. If they were to sell 1.5 million copies, then it would be .50 cents per book. The more books they sell, the smaller the fixed cost per book. Of course, that’s just one fixed cost! You need to add all the others in (marketing must have been very large as well). Furthermore, Meyer is THE best seller. The vast majority of authors don’t sell anything that comes close. Yes, they have smaller advances and marketing budgets. But you get the idea–fixed costs matter!
So all these people saying that since no paper is involved ebooks should cost nothing are ignoring fixed costs. In fact, according to some sources, printing, paper, and shipping only account for 10-20% of the cost of most books. I don’t know if that’s an average at all volume levels. Again, there was nothing to back up those claims. But if it’s accurate, you can see the arguments demanding ebooks be sold for next to nothing become silly at best.
The fact is that the publisher needs to cover those fixed costs. If you were the publisher, how would you do it? Would you price hardbacks to cover fixed + variable + profit? And then price paperbacks and ebooks at variable + profit? Probably not. Hardbacks are already pushing the price limits for consumers. I think you’d want to spread those fixed costs around. If anything, you might try to cover a higher portion of the fixed costs with the paperback and ebooks.
My inner accountant is screaming for real data to crunch and display in a spreadsheet, but I don’t have any actual actual price/volume/profit matrices. What I can say is that paper has NEVER been the only cost. For midlist authors I suspect it’s probably the smaller portion of the cost of each indivudal book. Publishers must price the books and move the necessary volume to cover fixed costs + variable costs + some profit. And so it’s only reasonable to expect that ebooks be priced to do that.
I don’t know which specific potential leader will end up providing better prices, reading devices, services, etc. in the long run. Is that Amazon, Apple, Barnes & Noble? A whole bunch of retailers? Who knows?
What I do know is that it’s good to have a number of companies competing for the customer’s dollars. My vote is with having lots of retailers. If Amazon can sell a significantly larger number of ebooks with their pricing, then publishers, authors, and readers all win. If they can’t, then it becomes a win-lose. And the publishers and authors will be on the lookout for a way to improve the situation by seeking out other distribution channels.
2/4/2010 4:05 PM
It appears Macmillan and Amazon have come to an agreement.
Notice Macmillan CEO claims this new agreement will result in them making LESS money than they do with ebooks currently. But it provides a reliable and rational market. I think what he’s saying is that this allows publishers more predictability, even if it comes at a price.
From what I understand Amazon currently pays 50% of suggested retail price for an ebook. The publisher sets the SRP (you see it on the book often), but Amazon has full control to charge whatever it wants to the customer. Here are the numbers for SERVANT.
Under the new deal the publiser sets the SRP and the consumer price. On each sale Amazon gets 30%, the publisher 70%. Here are the number for SERVANT under this scenario.
So why earn less? As Macmillan says in the announcement above, they’re willing to take less to have a more rational and stable market for ebooks
Over the last few years we have been deeply concerned about the pricing of electronic books. That pricing, combined with the traditional business model we were using, was creating a market that we believe was fundamentally unbalanced. In the last three weeks, from a standing start we have moved to a new business model. We will make less money on the sale of e books, but we will have a stable and rational market. To repeat myself from last Sunday’ s letter, we will now have a business model that will ensure our intellectual property will be available digitally through many channels, at a price that is both fair to the consumer and that allows those who create and publish it to be fairly compensated.
We have also started discussions with all our other partners in the digital book world. While there is still lots of work to be done, they have all agreed to move to the agency model.
So this is how all ebooks will work with Macmillan going forward. I’m betting most or all the other publishers will follow suit.
I think this is good news for readers, publishers, and retailers. Readers get it for less than hardcover. It will be at the higher end of the range settled with Amazon (I think it was $5.99 – $14.99) unless the publisher decides to run discounts as they do with many blockbusters now in hardback. But the price will drop as time goes on. I imagine when they release the paperback for a book, they’ll have to drop it for certain. And when books go to the remainder tables, they’ll drop again. I can see old ebooks or promotions costing $5.99 – $9.99, new ones $14.00.
BTW, the standard now for many authors is to be paid 15% royalty of the SRP on ebooks up to a maximum of 40-50% of the net amount publishers get from the retailer (btw, contracts stipulate different royalty rates for ebooks, hardback, mass market, etc.). Something the industry is considering, as mentioned in Sargent’s letter, is setting a % rate of the amount received by Macmillan from Amazon. So instead of paying authors 15% royalty on the SRP, new contracts will likely pay authors 20 -25% of the 70% the publisher receives as royalty. You can do the math. It’s very clear this new deal doesn’t earn the author more per book.
Hopefully, then, we’ll simply sell a heck of a lot more copies. One glitch in all this is the fact that publishers haven’t really been setting prices with consumers. That’s been the retailer’s job. And so they’ll probably have a learning curve trying to get the prices right in the beginning. Or maybe not. We’ll have to see.
2/5/2010
Your point is, hey, if they have three products (hardback, paperback, and ebook) to spread the fixed costs across, then should that allow them to drop the price of all three products? $100 / 2 = $50. $100 / 3 = $33.3. Have I got the question right?
FIXED COSTS AND VOLUME
If so, then the answer is it all depends on the relationship between volume and fixed costs. It always depends on that relationship. In fact, that 20% figure may or may not be accurate because . . . it all depends on volume and fixed costs. Both of which can change.
Let’s take a totally FABRICATED and SIMPLIFIED situation to see how it works.
Fixed costs: $10,000
Variable costs hardback (paper, printing, binding, etc.): $3
Cost per book by volume printed.
Printed / Cost per Book / Variable as %
1 / $10,003 / 0.03%
1,000 / $1,003 / 0.3%
5,000 / $5 / 60%
10,000 / $4 / 75%
20,000 / $3.50 / 86%
50,000 / $3.20 / 94%
Now remember: printing has fixed and variable costs as well. But I’m going to say the printing’s all variable to keep this manageable. And that you sell every book you print (something that never happens). The thing to see here is that when you keep fixed costs constant and increase the volume printed, then the fixed cost amount and % per book goes down. Conversely, variable costs become a larger and larger portion of each unit’s cost. Remember, however, that often fixed costs go up when you plan on printing significatly more books (Twilight etc.) But given a set budget for a book, you want to sell as much as you can.
VARIABLES CHANGE
So your argument is that when ebooks come along, the fixed costs have already been covered by the hardbacks and papers, cause they’re all still priced the same and the variable and fixed costs haven’t gone up that much since two or three years ago.
Here’s some of the assumptions you’ve made that might be false:
1. Fixed and variable costs haven’t gone up
2. Publishers are selling the same number of copies per book as they were in the past
3. Ebooks aren’t cannibalizing sales of hardcopies
The truth may be that costs have gone up and that books aren’t selling as many copies in their various formats as they used to. But even if both of things have not happened, why should we suppose that ebooks don’t cannibalize hardcopy sales, dropping the volumes and, therefore, increasing the cost per hardcopy? Or that they won’t cannibalize even more in the future as ebook readers become better and better.
On the revenue end, you’re also assuming publishers are selling books for the same prices they were in the past. SRP may be high, but have you noticed the prices on new books on Amazon and other outlets? My $25.99 SRP book came out and sold for $17. It sold for $15 and change before release! And I’m not a big name they’re trying to drive volume to. This is newbie no-name they’re having to discount.
What I expect has happened over the last five years is this. Costs have risen. Hardbacks are already pushing the limits on price. Furthermore, sellers and consumers are asking for more and more discounts. Paperbacks still haven’t crossed the $9.99, but there’s still pressure to keep them low. Ebooks are adding revenue, but a significant portion of that comes at the expense of hardcopies. So it changes the mix of products sold. It doesn’t simply open up a whole new stream of untapped cash. Because of this, ebooks allow the publisher another method to earn profit that’s getting squeezed away.
PRODUCT MIXES AND CONTRIBUTION MARGINS
The best way to look at this is to look at the cost in two ways. One way is to allocate fixed costs and get a price per unit. But if you look at it only that way, you can make a number of bad judgments on the value or price of a product. This happens because of that relationship between fixed costs and volume. So you also want to look at the contribution margin of each product. And, in fact, this is a better way of judging the profitability of an item.
In this method you lump all the fixed costs together and then examine each unit of the different products (hard, soft, ebook) only by its variable cost versus revenue to see if each unit sold is contributing something above its variable cost towards the fixed costs. Then you estimate the volume you expect (hope) to sell at given prices and try to price them all in a way that will move enough volume of each type of product to cover fixed costs and provide some profit.
So you don’t consider each product type individually. You look at the MIX of product and the MIX of contribution margins. And you work it so that together the MIX of products covers costs and earns you a profit. And gets enough volume to keep your author a going concern, growing his numbers so he becomes more profitable as time goes on.
2/6/2010
Please check out this blog by L.E. Modesitt, Jr. “Why Amazon and Some Readers are Wrong”
Second, what’s been overlooked is the fact that a tremendous number of book titles actually lose money. Depending on the publisher and the year, that can range from as little as 30% of all titles published to more than 60%. That means that successful books not only have to cover their own production costs but the losses from unsuccessful books if the publisher is to remain in business.
Third, hardcover sales of successful books effectively subsidize paperbacks or less successful books. Ten-dollar Kindle books would have created price pressures that would either reduce the sales of hardcovers or replace them with e-books, and as more adaptable e-book reading devices become available, that would reduce overall revenues even more than would $15 e-books. This, in turn, would reduce the ability of publishers to try “new” authors and approaches, and would likely result in more “mass” entertainment and less diversity in a field that is already having trouble publishing books for limited audiences.
Just in case you didn’t connect it to the discussion above. A HUGE cost that needs to be covered by the contribution margins of the successful books are the fixed AND variable costs of each book that fails to contribute enough segment margin (the contribution margin of a segment of your business, in this case a book in its various formats) to pay for itself. Look at Modesitt’s percentages of books that lose the publisher money. Think about that. For the publisher to continue to bring in new authors who might not sell well in the beginning but have great potential in the long run to sell well, they have to cover the “start up” costs of those authors.
He makes a lot of other important points. It’s a good read. And it all plugs into the fixed costs, volume, price, contribution margin equations.
National Geographic ran an article in the March issue titled “Wolf Wars.” It has a great interactive map. You’ll want to read the whole article, but I want you to look at something.
First, here’s a picture of a wolf in Yellowstone licking his or her chops over a recent elk kill. Looks real friendly, doesn’t it. Here, poochie, poochie, poochie.
A few facts. Wolves can grow up to six feet long (tip of nose to tip of tail) and three feet tall. They weigh on average about 80 pounds but can be as heavy as 150-190 pounds. Wolves can reach 40 mph when chasing, but the use their stamina more than speed. Regardless of how they catch you, their jaws are strong enough to crush bones. You want more facts? Go to this wiki article on canis lupis. The point is that they are large, smart predators. At the top of the food chain. These aren’t little doggies. They’re killers. And they are mighty hard to socialize with humans (read the wiki article).
Of course, it can be done. Not far away in Heber City, Utah lives Doug and Lynne Seus (yes, that’s the name–gotta love it!) who train wild animals for movies. The company is called Rocky Mountain Wasatch Wildlife. I know you’ve seen one of their animal “actors,” Bart the bear, in many movies. The Seuses also happen to train wolves. A friend of mine grew up in Heber with the daughter of Doug and Lynne. She visits from time to time. Last summer she went down and saw the wolves. My friend was told that she had to carry any children she might bring.
Why?
Because the children are food. That’s why. And when she went out there, the wolves were tracking those children every minute with their eyes. Freaked her out. In fact, another friend got so freaked she took her kid back to the main house and didn’t come out again. Folks, these are wolves that work with humans ALL THE TIME.
I know the nature programs often make it seem like wolves are harmless, but they’re predators. Just like grizzlies, tigers, or crocodiles. Wolves are dangerous. A pack kills up to two elk a week. That’s a lot of eating. But they’re all up in Yellowstone, right?
Um, no.
Holy schnitzel!
If you didn’t read it above, they’re estimating about 1,645 wolves in 217 packs. And that’s just the ones that have been officially documented. You know there are more out there that haven’t been seen. Look at the one all the way out by Casper, WY. Those bad boys can travel. In fact, the NG article says that wolves stake out a territory of about 200 to 500 square miles (a circle of that size has a radius of 8 to 13 miles). They travel on average (AVERAGE!) 60 miles from their pack when seeking a mate or new pack. Although one was recorded traveling 500 miles.
Okay, so given the maps and sightings above, how is the John Brown family doing down in Laketown?
The map below marks Laketown, UT with an A. I marked over that the packs shown in NG in red and others reported in pink. I also show orange rings 20 miles apart.
The “unofficial” sighting just inside the 80 mile ring was by my brother-in-law. The wolves were killing a bunch of his neighbor’s ewes he was taking care of. I didn’t say “eating” because they were killing far too many to eat. Wolves looked up at brother-in-law on four-wheeler. Assessed him. No whimpering, no cowering, no doggie wagging of tails. Just a frank assessment–human, danger or lunch? Said wolves sent a herd of the willies galloping up brother-in-law’s back. Freaked him out. He high-tailed it out of there and called the Feds who found that pack and killed them about fifteen miles away. But that sighting was before 2003. The sighting just outside the 100 mile mark was by some neighbors around 2007. The sighting down by Manila, UT was reported in a news report by KSL news in 2008, just two years ago.
Okay, so I think it’s pretty safe to say that we probably have wolves in our backyard. And if we don’t, they’ll be here in a year or three.
Go read “Wolf Wars” in the the National Geographic. It’s free. Then tell me how you’d feel with a few packs in your backyard. Are you all warm and comfy? Here, little doggie . . .
So I’m thinking that when the girls or I go hiking, which we do all the time, we need to carry more than a walking stick. More than a paintball gun used to scare the deer out of our garden. I know that even with all the packs shown above, I haven’t heard about wolves attacking humans, but is it wise to assume they just freak out when they see humans and all run away–“that’s a eight-year-old human girl, she will make me wear the cone of shame. I do not like the cone of shame.”
Or will it be, “Hum, possible lunch over there, let’s check it out. Ooh, look at the fat one. I bet he’s tasty.”
What do you think?
So after finishing The Husband I wrote a letter to Dean Koontz. I never expected a reply. Today I got a package in the mail. I picked it up, thinking it was a book from Amazon. The sender was Mr. Dean Koontz. What? Dean Koontz?!
I opened it up. There was a form letter folded in half over a book. The part I read said:
At certain times of the year, I’m able to answer readers’ letters with a line or two, more personally than I am able to do right now. Currently I’m so overwhelmed by book and film deadlines that I’m going to have to resort to this less than satisfying form response.
I’m all, cool, a form letter and a book! He then talks about how he reads virtually all his letters even though he gets over 10,000 a year. Then he says he’s included a FAQ and his Useless News newsletter which talks about his latest books etc. The last part of the letter I could see was:
I hope you’ll understand why this less personal reply is necessary for the time being. And I hope
So I thought, hey. The man sent me a book. Holy cow. Talk about your customer service. Then I actually cut away the plastic wrapping and unfolded the letter and saw, despite his busyness, he had indeed written a note.
John–thanks for your great letter and kind words. Most of my career, I’ve been told–subtly and less than subtly–that my world view is that of a minority that won’t long–or much longer–sustain a large audience. Worldwide sales now are past 400 million copies. I tremble, wondering when it will all end! Congratulations on the TOR sale! From me to you, a book close to my heart.
Merry Christmas!
Dean
Duuuuude! And it wasn’t some admin either. The last paragraph of the letter says:
For what it’s worth, the signature below is mine. I don’t use legions of monkeys trained to forge my name, in part because they don’t seem quite smart enough to learn what’s wanted of them; and although dolphins are no doubt smart enough, they don’t have hands.
The signature is in blue ink. The same hand as the note. By this time I was totally geeking out.
Dean Koontz. He’s like one of the top 10 most popular novelests in the world. I LOVE his stuff. Then I opened the book. He’d signed it.
To John–WOOF. Dean Koontz 12-18-09
At that moment I was in total fanboy heaven. And I don’t do fanboy or any of that other wussy stuff.
I sent my letter on December 14th. 2 days down. 2 or 3 days back. That means he read it almost the day he got it. What a class act. And I was expecting nothing. I only sent my original letter because I truly appreciated his books and had to let him know.
So I guess one of the next books I’ll be reading is his A Big Little Life: A Memoir of a Joyful Dog. I expect it will be great.
BTW, here’s the text of my letter.
Dear Mr. Koontz,
I just finished reading The Good Guy. Thank you. Loved the interaction between Tim and Linda. And the reveals of their back stories. Loved Mary and Pete. Loved the situation. Krait was interesting and horrible. But the thing that put me over the top was the ending. [SPOILERS DELETED] I finished and said, “Yes!”
Thanks for the thousands of hours you’ve put into writing that have allowed you to deliver these kinds of stories and characters who are interesting, funny, and, despite some flaws, deep down good. I appreciate your view of the world, a place where great evil can exist, but also people like Mary, Tim, and Pete.
Thanks for stories that entice me to be more. The Husband enticed me to be that kind of man for my wife. The Good Guy enticed me to be a man of courage. Odd Thomas, on the other hand, has inspired me to make heavenly light and fluffy pancakes. I know you’re not sermonizing, but that’s probably why the tales move me the way they do.
I’m a new author; my debut from Tor (an imprint of Macmillan) just came out this October. I’m working like a madman to learn the craft and produce. And it’s wonderful to be able to see someone like you at the top of his game, writing these kinds of stories and sharing these kinds of characters. I hope, when I get to the end of my career (big or small), that I will have been able to deliver suspense, laughs, and goodness as you have.
Sincerely,
John Brown
And now I hope I can not only be the kind of author that delivers stories like Koontz, but also one who isn’t one whit behind in graciousness with my readers.
A few years ago I was going on and on about a couple of authors whose work I love. It drove Nellie nuts. But she finally got over the eye-rolling stage. At least I thought she’d put it aside. However, on that Christmas she gave me a 4×6 inch piece of material that looks like a Persian rug with votive candles and the names of those favorite authors on little cards that had been folded in half, tent style. She thought that was the best joke ever. Yeah, until she caught me praying in the basement. (Actually, I never prayed, dang it! Why does it take me seven years to think up these comebacks?!)
Of course, when I rushed back up stairs after having opened today’s package, she sighed. “I guess this means I gotta make a card for Koontz now, doesn’t it.”
Oh, yeah. Votives for the man.
Just finished chapter 20. It’s been a rough month for writing, but I believe life has settled down a bit, and I should be able to get the time in that I need. I hate giving targets publicly because the last time I did that I just missed and missed and missed. So we’ll stay with the progress gauge. Although I have to say that I might go over thirty chapters. I normally write chapters about 2,500 words long. But these are averaging 2,000. We’ll see. The outline always changes during the first draft.
For those interested I will be at the LTUE symposium at BYU all day Thursday, Feb 14th. I’ll be on the history and folklore panel at 10 AM, attending the Card workshops from 2 PM-4PM, and holding my own workshop–THE 3 THINGS YOU MUST LEARN TO WRITE KILLER STORIES–from 5PM-7PM.
It’s Valentines, so bring your object of affection. (Yes, mannequins are allowed.)
But what was I doing scheduling this on the love day to begin with? See, this is the one weakness of the male beast–he only remembers significant dates AFTER he commits himself foolishly.
