Indie wars and statistics

The BBC published a lengthy article last autumn on current publishing in the UK, with some comparison statistics showing US and UK differences. Figures vary - as statistics always do! - depending who is writing, what the angle is and which figures they decide to quote. But the general trend is always the same - e-books are expanding their market share. The graphics are clear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23682885

There's also a wonderful argument going on at :
http://goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-publishers-should-not-be-called-authors?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=self-publishers-should-not-be-called-authors

Basically there are several groups in the US who think there is, and should be, a distinction between self-published authors and traditionally-published authors. In order to join such organisations, you have to earn say, $1,000 over a calendar year.

"The Published Authors Network has strict requirements on who can join their organization. You have to earn $1,000 in the form of an advance on a single Eligible Novel. Or you have to earn $1,000 in the form of royalties or a combination of advance plus royalties on a single published Eligible Novel. Finally, you have to pull in $5,000 in the form of earnings for a Self-Published novel."

The "author" of the article goes on at length, and the comments section that follows is a hoot. But seriously, if this goes through, UK authors are going to struggle to gain a foothold in the US. Our much smaller market place makes it very difficult to earn such an amount in such a time. With a new book from an unknown author, it strikes me as virtually impossible. 

Modern tv

 Have you ever watched a newscast and muttered rude comments about the presenter, the guest and whatever it is they are discussing? It has become commonplace in our house. "Rubbish," I hear my dh say when someone spouts forth with some new plan for educational reform. "We tried that forty years ago. Stop re-inventing the wheel."
I get incensed when I hear someone say volunteers can run a library as well as paid staff. "Rubbish," I hiss.
We're old fashioned enough to dislike the news that a huge section of children are growing up without the influence of a father, to wonder why young women, often inappropriately dressed, are walking home alone at three in the morning through darkened streets, why film soundtracks are now so deafeningly loud, why people over forty still cling on to the gigs and pop music of their youth, why the media consistently attacks the NHS, why people buy so much pre-packed rubbish from supermarkets, why there has to be so much packaging - all brightly coloured and appealing to the eye when the goods inside are so much the opposite - and above all why people throw away so much food.

Another thing - why are presenters and interviewers so rude these days? When they interrupt people trying to give an explanation, cut across them in mid-sentence, talk over them to the point that the viewer cannot hear either person clearly - what are they teaching young people? That it is cool and clever to be rude? Another annoyance is the presence of so-called music running behind the person speaking to camera. This is particularly annoying when it's a documentary and the information you tuned in for is being drowned out by some mad drummer in a basement. If he was a neighbour, people would be hammering on the front door and asking for him to desist. The other irritating thing is the camera drooling over presenters from every possible angle including the revolting up-the-nose shot from around knee height while ignoring the rock formation (Ian Stewart) and the historical artefact (Too many presenters to mention) the landscape (Neil Oliver) and I am so tried of watching the screen with growing nervous tension  as the presenter drives along a motorway while talking and gazing at the camera. (Julian Richards and Bettany Hughes) Even Liz Bonnin and Chris Packham, to the detriment of the snow tigers and the creatures on Springwatch.

Bah humbug! Feel pleased to have got that off my chest, and hope someone from the BBC is reading.

Whale-watching

We tried to go whale watching on Friday, but it was so windy the catamaran Amaroo did not go to sea. Instead we had a wander around the shops of Forster, and came home again. Later we tried to go for a walk across the headland, but were so plagued with flies – ordinary houseflies – that we turned back.  They try and fly into your eyes, narrowly miss getting sucked into your nose and mouth, and settle in dozens on your back. I can see why the stereotypical Australians wear hats with corks bobbing around the rim, though I must admit I’ve never seen anyone with this type of headgear!

Today we tried again. Up early, into Forster for 9am, and our tickets secured. By 10am we were under way, warned that we had to sit down on the top deck because it was high tide and there wasn’t much clearance as we went under the bridge that spans the lake. Once out on the open sea, we saw whales about twenty feet from the boat – glimpses of backs and flippers, tails and some spouting, but nothing spectacular. There were several, including a mother and calf, but I was a little disappointed because not one single whale leapt out of the water, but that’s life. BBC wildlife programmes spoil everyone by bringing close up views into our homes. It seems so easy, but the cameramen probably spent six weeks at sea to catch the spectacular footage we get to see. My little camera wasn't up to the task!

Fishing boat crossing our wake

The boat trip was great with or without the whales. Riding the swells by sitting astride the seat and gripping with my knees as if I was riding a horse, leaping up and nearly falling over whenever a spout or black hump showed in the water. Trying to keep my balance as I walked a crazy path across the width of the boat, staring out over the rolling swells coming in off the Pacific and wondering if the sun was going to come out or the storm clouds on the horizon would drift closer.