World in the Satin Bag

I know this is a big deal in the blogosphere (or at least it was) and I suspect there are some folks wondering why I haven’t chimed in. I have some valid reasons and some not-so-valid ones. First, I came into the discussion late. It’s impossible to keep up with RaceFail. Even though the arguments seem to have died down or shifted to more obscure locales, there is too much to read to get a good idea what has already happened. For a while I had no idea what RaceFail even was because nobody that I saw had put together a logical time line that put into perspective what exactly had occurred. Second, I’m not interested in being flamed and bashed to death by people who are either understandably passionate about this subject, or illogically consumed by any subject of race. That’s partly why I avoid discussing race on this blog, except where it is relevant to something I am interested in (such as the “Other,” a subject of academic interest for me). That might seem to be contradictory, but so be it. I suppose what I mean is that I’ll discuss the “Other,” but I will generally avoid involving myself in those discussions which purposefully try to exclude other people simply because they’re not part of a certain group. That’s what RaceFail seems to have done, and I think most sides of the argument are at fault. Third, I think the entire discussion that sprang up in which some people said that other people couldn’t write the “Other” properly and yadda yadda is a stupid one. I don’t care which side you are on. Why? Because there is no proper way to write the “Other.” Period. You can argue against this all you want, but nobody technically writes the “Other” properly, because there is no single unique “Other” experience. Even people who are part of groups identified as the “Other” can only write from their perspective, but not from the perspective of all “Others.” A black woman’s experience will be different from a black man’s1; a Chinese family’s experience will be different from a Native American family’s. That’s just reality. This is like saying that I know what it’s like being white because I happen to be white. I know the white experience from my perspective and only that perspective. I am relatively unique in this group of “white people” because I am not part of every different subgroup of white. I do not know what it’s like to be Jewish, or a fundamentalist Christian, or even a white man from Iowa. Whatever universal “white” experiences I may have are not really “white” experiences anyway, because much of what I experience is simply part of being human. So, to reiterate: nobody writes the proper “Other,” because no such thing exists. There may be writers who do particularly poorly by inserting stereotypes and claiming to be socially conscious writers, but mostly nobody gets it right. Having said all this, I think it’s clear that I am saying something about RaceFail, which wasn’t really my intention. I don’t see myself becoming part of the discussion beyond this, though, primarily because I don’t think RaceFail has done much good. It got people talking, but from the little I know, it also got people saying things that probably shouldn’t have been said. Some folks have been alienated (so much so that they don’t feel comfortable in the SF/F genre anymore), and I think that is the most important thing to remember. And that’s pretty much all I’ve got to say. ——————————————- 1. This difference is something not generally taught in school, but history paints a very disturbing picture of gender and its relationship to race. For example, black women were, for a long time, at the lowest rung of society in America. Since black men were technically subhuman, that made black women practically non-human, and thus relegated to the same status as that of animals. They were slaves on an entirely different level, because they could not legally defend themselves against rape and other horrid acts. For more, I suggest reading Evelyn Higginbotham’s essay on race as metalanguage.

HarperStudio (of HarperCollins) recently had a post about why they price eBooks as high as they do. There has been a big stink in the e-publishing world lately about the price of eBooks, so hearing a publisher try to explain why things are the way they are is interesting and useful…except when it’s a load of B.S. Let’s put things in perspective. HarperStudio is arguing that the same production costs should apply to eBooks because they say so. Not because it makes sense or because it sounds right, but because they say so. Most, if not all, of the books being put into eBook form by major publishers are already being printed in dead-tree form as well (or already have been printed that way some time ago). This intentionally ignores all the money they are saving/making by selling eBooks: no (or lesser) distribution costs, no loss for unsold books, access to a new market, etc. The list really can go on. Essentially, the publisher is saving a lot of money by printing eBooks, and yet those who buy them are still being shafted. Why? I don’t know. Maybe because publishers want to make a quick buck off of a new technology? Or maybe because there’s something else they’re not telling us. It should be noted that eBook enthusiasts aren’t asking that eBooks be priced for pennies on the dollar; far from it. In fact, all eBook readers are asking is for a price tag that makes some sort of sense, and paying dead-tree prices for a book that essentially has none of the following is stupid: No tangibility No sell back potential (i.e. you can’t sell it used) DRMed (usually) *insert other viable reason here* Whether this cost is $6.00 or $7.00, eBook readers are asking for a price tag that makes buying eReaders and eBooks worth it. Right now, what’s really the value in paying for an eReader only to pay practically the same price for an eBook as you would pay for a dead-tree version? Almost none, unless you buy a heck of a lot of books. Saving $2.00, as HarperStudio mentions, means you’d have to buy roughly 200 eBooks in order to recuperate the high cost of the various eReaders. That’s a lot of books, and we can suspect that folks using eReaders are in this for the long haul. We’ve even seen sales go up. So what’s the big deal? And before anyone comments that I just don’t understand how it all works: I understand that there are editors and what not, each with a specific job and each that has to get paid for a service. But I don’t find that as a valid excuse for overcharging for eBooks. That seems like a cop out to me, as if to say, “Well, we paid for the dead-tree version, let’s punish the electronic folks.” What does everyone else think about this? Am I just flat out wrong? Why? Is there more to this that publishers aren’t telling us? Are eBook prices going to go down, or do you think they’ll remain high until the market dies? Leave a comment with your thoughts!