• Guest please check The Index before starting a thread.

AEC Stellar Publishing

editing_for_authors
Editing for authors: because every writer needs a good editor.

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,453
Reaction score
4,938
Location
In chaos
Okay, you got me. I'm secretly the business founder who has taken a new persona to defend his scorned company.

Wait, no. I'm just a random guy who thought he'd try and get a word in edge-wise. And all my info comes from about three weeks of research (I'm not going to submit to a house without knowing them inside and out.)

With all due respect, highborn, three weeks' research is not very much.

Publishing is an odd, counterintuitive business, and people who don't have direct experience are very rarely equipped to start up their own publishing house no matter how much business experience they have: this is one of those big, obvious red flags that authors should look out for.

There's plenty of evidence that this is the case in this room: if you look in the index thread in Bewares, you'll see plenty of greyed-out threads which show that the publisher we discussed has now gone out of business. And many of those publishers were started off by really good people, who had high hopes and good intentions, but who just lacked the knowledge they required to make things work.

It's very sad; and it's even sadder when you realise that all the books that were signed up by the companies concerned are now assets of those companies, and are so tied up in administration and bankruptcy proceedings, and the authors have little hope of ever seeing their rights returned--and if they are returned, they have little hope of having the book published well anywhere else.

We're looking at AEC and considering if it's a good option for writers. Based on the current evidence, they're not. We're not trying to be mean to the people who work there: we're trying to look out for the writers who might sign their books over to them. That's all.

Perhaps when you know a bit more about publishing you might realise what's really at stake here, and what the true risks are; and then you might judge us less harshly.

I know I sound patronising and pompous, but I don't mean to: it's difficult to hit the right tone online. Please be assured that my intentions are good. And if you're wondering where on earth I get off telling you you don't know what you're talking about, then consider this: for every week of research you've done into this publishing house, I've worked in publishing for a decade.

My closest connection to the company is knowing one of their authors.
Ah.

So you weren't being honest with us when you told us this:

P.S. I'm not affiliated with AEC in any way, but they're near the top of my list of indie publishers to submit to.

You do have an affiliation with AEC: they publish a friend of yours.

She told me she had a wonderful experience with them. The word "transparency" was used a lot, which I guess means they don't hide stuff? It was used again in this thread, so I'm guessing it's an official term.
It's not an official term: it's a common one. It means that they didn't hide things.

But it's not necessarily an indication that one is working with a good publisher.

And with all due respect to your friend, her wonderful experience is not the evidence you need to know if this is a good publisher or not.

Things you should be considering: what does her book look like? Have you noticed many typos in it? Where is it for sale? How has her publisher marketed and promoted her book? How are her sales? Does the publisher pay promptly?

If her book looks amateurish or is full of typos, you should think again about working with this publishing house.

If they're telling her she has to do the marketing and promotion, walk away.

If her book is not available through all major channels, walk away.

And if her sales are poor, then you should RUN.

I'm not the greatest at math, but if 40 or so people are discussing something and slip in a few biting remarks, I'd count that as around 100.
*boggle*
 

highborn

Registered
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Location
Melbourne
You do have an affiliation with AEC: they publish a friend of yours.

Is that what you call an affiliation? I thought it was when you actually work for, or have worked for, the company in question. My mistake.

I know I sound patronising and pompous, but I don't mean to: it's difficult to hit the right tone online.

My gripe was with how people were focusing on all the little things that Mr Vogel said, like the bit about the Harry Potter lady, etc., instead of asking the right questions. It just seemed really snobby to me. And I get what you're saying. You certainly sound more experienced than me. I have dealt with publishers who weren't very experienced, but had the best intentions. I read the thread about Musa Publishing. Now, that was a firestorm.

If her book looks amateurish or is full of typos, you should think again about working with this publishing house.

If they're telling her she has to do the marketing and promotion, walk away.

If her book is not available through all major channels, walk away.

And if her sales are poor, then you should RUN.

Nice cover, no typos, available through *most* channels (I haven't seen her book at my local Dymocks, for instance, which I'll admit worries me) and according to her, her sales have been good.

She does do her own marketing, but not because she has been asked to. Even if I was published by Random House, I would still do my own marketing. I wouldn't do it alone, though, and neither does she.


Huh?

Look, I get it. I do. I was just trying to say that AEC don't look all that bad, and that some of the snobby, patronizing comments seemed less focused on getting to the truth and more about sneering at a new press which may not have given the best impression.

Happy reading!
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,453
Reaction score
4,938
Location
In chaos
Is that what you call an affiliation? I thought it was when you actually work for, or have worked for, the company in question. My mistake.

Don't worry about it: it's just helpful if everyone knows what's what. It's that transparency we talked about earlier.

Your friend is published with them. You want your friend to do well and so you want them to do well. You're biased in their favour. And that makes a difference to how we interpret your comments here.

My gripe was with how people were focusing on all the little things that Mr Vogel said, like the bit about the Harry Potter lady, etc., instead of asking the right questions. It just seemed really snobby to me. And I get what you're saying. You certainly sound more experienced than me. I have dealt with publishers who weren't very experienced, but had the best intentions.

It's not snobby at all to point out the problems we see when they're valid and are presented without being disrespectful. If you see anything here that you think is disrespectful then there's a "report post" button you can click, which will bring it to the attention of the moderators of that room. Honest debate is good; sneering and belittling anyone is not, and we won't stand for that here.

Good intentions don't get you very far if you don't know what you're doing, and all those little things that you objected to are good clues that Mr Vogel doesn't have the experience he's going to need to make AEC a success--no matter how good his intentions are. And in my experience good intentions are not enough if you're going to start up a publishing house: you HAVE to have experience too, if you want to make a success of the books you take on.

Nice cover, no typos, available through *most* channels (I haven't seen her book at my local Dymocks, for instance, which I'll admit worries me) and according to her, her sales have been good.

I've taken a look at some of AEC's books and they tend to not have nice covers, and there are typos in the books.

Do they have full distribution? If not, they're a poor choice because that lack of distribution will mean they won't get their books into many bookshops, and so their sales will be very poor.

You might like to ask her how many copies her books have actually sold: being told that sales are good is not a quantifiable thing. I'd expect to sell a few hundred copies of my books in the first week of sales, at least, and for sales to quickly be measured in the thousands, not the hundreds: if this isn't the case here, then sales are not good.

She does do her own marketing, but not because she has been asked to. Even if I was published by Random House, I would still do my own marketing. I wouldn't do it alone, though, and neither does she.

No, she wouldn't have to do her own marketing if she were published by Random House. That's just not true at all.

Marketing is the paid-for stuff: ads and so on. And it's the publisher's responsibility to do this. Promotion is the free stuff: book signings, interviews and so on, and the publisher and author should collaborate on this: the author has to be the one signing the books and appearing at readings; but the publisher should cover the costs involved (expenses and so on) and provide supporting materials, such as posters, book marks, refreshments and so on. Also, the publisher should send out review copies and do all they can to get those reviews in place.

If an author is unwilling or unable to promote their own books, the publisher should find a way to promote them without the author. It makes no sense to invest money in publishing a book and then not promote it effectively.
 

highborn

Registered
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Location
Melbourne
Marketing is the paid-for stuff: ads and so on.

Oh really? I always considered "marketing" and "promotion" as interchangeable. Oxford Dictionary defines marketing as, "the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising."

Tish-tosh.

While it is definitely the publisher's responsibility, a good author still does their own marketing/promotion/hullaballoo.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,453
Reaction score
4,938
Location
In chaos
Oh really? I always considered "marketing" and "promotion" as interchangeable. Oxford Dictionary defines marketing as, "the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising."

Tish-tosh.

While it is definitely the publisher's responsibility, a good author still does their own marketing/promotion/hullaballoo.

The definition I gave is the one which has been used in publishing for most of the three decades I've spent working in the business--and some of that time was spent working as a sales and marketing director.

I know of several good authors who haven't done any promotion at all. "Good authors" are people who write good books. If they also promote those books effectively that's a bonus but if they can't or won't, it's not a deal-breaker.

Consider A S A Harrison who died before her debut novel. The Silent Wife, was published: she obviously could do no promotion for the book but it was still a big success. And of course, Stieg Larsson's Dragon Tattoo series became a worldwide best-seller despite Larsson's inability to promote the work.
 

highborn

Registered
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Location
Melbourne
The definition I gave is the one which has been used in publishing for most of the three decades I've spent working in the business--and some of that time was spent working as a sales and marketing director.

Good for you. I've never had a problem using them interchangeably, because they mean virtually the same thing.

"Good authors" are people who write good books. If they also promote those books effectively that's a bonus but if they can't or won't, it's not a deal-breaker.

Actually, as an editor, I can say that if an author shows a willingness to promote their work, they are more likely to get published.

Consider A S A Harrison who died before her debut novel. The Silent Wife, was published: she obviously could do no promotion for the book but it was still a big success.

It's a known fact that posthumous authors tend to sell well. The single greatest thing Miss Harrison could do for her novel, marketing wise, was die.

And of course, Stieg Larsson's Dragon Tattoo series became a worldwide best-seller despite Larsson's inability to promote the work.

That's irrelevant. Some books sell well, some don't. Larsson became a hit, but I don't think you can say that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a bestseller because he didn't do any marketing. That's just silly. In fact, maybe he would have sold even more copies if he'd done some promotional stuff.
 

mrsmig

Write. Write. Writey Write Write.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
7,261
Reaction score
2,106
Location
Virginia
It's a known fact that posthumous authors tend to sell well. The single greatest thing Miss Harrison could do for her novel, marketing wise, was die.

:Jaw:
 

DreamWeaver

Shakespearean Fool
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,916
Reaction score
403
The definition I gave is the one which has been used in publishing for most of the three decades I've spent working in the business--and some of that time was spent working as a sales and marketing director.
Good for you. I've never had a problem using them interchangeably, because they mean virtually the same thing.
They can mean virtually the same thing in everyday usage and still mean different things in specific operational usage. Most people tend to think strategy and tactics mean the same thing, too, but in actual military usage they mean very, very different things. Just because common usage may equate two terms doesn't mean they don't have different and differing meanings in a specific arena, such as the military (strategy vs tactics) or publishing (marketing vs promotion).

No one is saying you have promotion and marketing mixed up, as in calvary vs cavalry or infer vs imply. It's just that in the publishing usage the meanings are more specific than in general usage.
 

Helix

socially distancing
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
9,278
Reaction score
3,885
Location
Atherton Tablelands
Website
snailseyeview.medium.com
It's a known fact that posthumous authors tend to sell well. The single greatest thing Miss Harrison could do for her novel, marketing wise, was die.
...

That's irrelevant. Some books sell well, some don't. Larsson became a hit, but I don't think you can say that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a bestseller because he didn't do any marketing. That's just silly. In fact, maybe he would have sold even more copies if he'd done some promotional stuff.

Well, I'm confused now. Could I sell more copies by passing away (like Ms Harrison) or by staying alive and doing promotion (as Mr Larsson might have done were he not dead)?
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,453
Reaction score
4,938
Location
In chaos
Good for you. I've never had a problem using them interchangeably, because they mean virtually the same thing.

If they're "virtually the same thing" they're not actually the same, are they? They're similar, but different. Which is what I said.

Actually, as an editor,

(an editor who considers words which mean "virtually the same thing" to be interchangeable)

I can say that if an author shows a willingness to promote their work, they are more likely to get published.

More likely to get published than what?

The publishers I've worked for (and there are a few) all prefer to sign up authors who have written really good books. If the authors are willing to promote their work then that's all well and good, but it doesn't take the place of that great book.

It's a known fact that posthumous authors tend to sell well. The single greatest thing Miss Harrison could do for her novel, marketing wise, was die.

Oh, for goodness' sake.

That's irrelevant. Some books sell well, some don't. Larsson became a hit, but I don't think you can say that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a bestseller because he didn't do any marketing. That's just silly. In fact, maybe he would have sold even more copies if he'd done some promotional stuff.

That swooshing noise people can hear is the sound of my point hurtling right over your head.

Not only have you contradicted yourself in the space of two paragraphs, you're also implying that I said things I didn't actually say.

Please don't do that.

Schrodinger's Author: Both alive and not alive, but selling books either way.

Best comment evah.
 

Medievalist

Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
25,450
Reaction score
6,343
Actually, as an editor, I can say that if an author shows a willingness to promote their work, they are more likely to get published.

That's a publisher I'd want to avoid. It's my job to write the books; it's their job to sell them. Where I might hand-sell a few hundred, they sell thousands.

It's their job. It's why I get 20-30% royalty, and not 60%. If I'm expected to market and promote, I want a lot more money.

My time is better spent writing another book.
 

Filigree

Mildly Disturbing
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
16,436
Reaction score
1,512
Location
between rising apes and falling angels
Website
www.cranehanabooks.com
Highborn, you mean well. I understand your tone with these posts is meant more as 'righteous indignation' than anything else. But you're coming across here not only as a bit of a sockpuppet, but as somewhat ill-informed about industry-specific usage of words.

No English major is likely to stand by in silence when you use the phrase 'virtually the same thing' to mean 'the same thing'.

Please, let's not let general semantics get in the way of the two main points of this part of the thread:

1. In literary publishing (and the art industry), 'Marketing' is the publisher's purview, and relates to the broad, wide-ranging publicity of a specific book, author, or publisher. This not only involves fueling world-of-mouth campaigns but introducing the book or the publisher to the world at large. This is something that big publishers can do very well - even for their lesser authors, who can indirectly benefit when the publisher makes a big splash. Print, internet, TV, and other campaigns cost big money, after all.

Likewise, 'Promotion' is usually meant as the stuff an author can do to get their books noticed. The jury's out on social media pushes (they can work to a point, but not if perceived as spam.) Unless one is a major best-seller already, hand-selling usually involves a few hundred copies per event. If that. For most of us authors the number is far smaller, often top-limited to 150 - 200 buyers in our intimate circle of friends and family.

Interestingly enough, that's around the same number of sales that multi-level marketing consultants tend to make from their initial 'investment', and often to the same group of people. Good promotion gets noticed far outside the village-level of contacts; most of us just don't know how to do it effectively.

2. If a publisher is charging more than 15% of royalties on sales, they should be deeply involved in the promotion and sales of their books. If they rely on their authors to do all or most of it, and still collect high royalties, then they are not an effective publisher. They may be friendly, funny, emotionally supportive, and have a wonderful editing team - but they're not earning their pay.

I had a lovely little e-publisher approach me when I was querying my debut novel. Their authors liked them, their covers were reasonable, and they'd actually been around a long time. Their sales were terrible. I regretfully passed. The offer I chose came from a stable, effective publisher with a solid reputation from readers and authors, and impressive sales.

And guess what? While they're happy when I promote my work, and do things to help me do so, they have far better marketing avenues than I do. They also have authors who do no personal promotion at all, and sell more than I do. They earn their royalty commission.

So do my art agents, who charge a 50% commission. In return, they get my art in front of private buyers I could never reach, and places like the Getty, Yale, Ringling School of Art & Design, and what seems like most of the university special collections libraries in the US and Canada. I can't afford those road trips - that's marketing.

To recap, if a small, relatively new publisher tried to convince me that I'd be responsible for most of my sales AND had to fork over 60% royalties, I would not do business with them.
 

highborn

Registered
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Location
Melbourne
Ok, I can see we’re getting a little bit off topic here. My original point was that I thought AEC deserved a little more cautious optimism and not to be publicly butchered based on the fact that they’re simply new, and maybe a little inexperienced. Penguin was once new, until they weren’t.

The reason I chose to defend them was because, well, I’m no stranger to bullies. Whether or not this lot intended to come across that way, I don’t know. Maybe I’m just being overly sensitive. But hey, a forum is meant to be a contest of ideas, right?

Calling me “sick” and “cold” is just being melodramatic. All I meant was that post-mortem authors tend to sell well, as in Miss Harrison’s case. No offence was meant, and I sincerely hope that none was taken. I’m not too familiar with her work, but by all accounts she was a beautiful woman with a beautiful mind. I just hope, if nothing else, I can get that point across.

A few more points:

1) I use the term “virtually” to mean “so similar that who gives a damn if you swing one way or the other”.

2) As for having numerous contacts in the industry (laughs), I really don’t. I’m pretty new, truth be told. A rookie. Maybe that gives me a unique perspective to the rest of you hardened publisher folk. I know I have a lot to learn, and I’ve certainly been given things to think about during this discussion. I still think I’m right, though, and that I wasn’t misinterpreting some of the snobbish and conceited comments.

3) I know this might sound a little self-defeating, but credit where it’s due: “Schrodinger’s author?” Fun.

I think that’s about it.

Oh, and I don’t mind being called a sockpuppet. I’m just speaking up about what I think is right. Call that what you want.
 
Last edited:

Helix

socially distancing
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
9,278
Reaction score
3,885
Location
Atherton Tablelands
Website
snailseyeview.medium.com
Calling me “sick” and “cold” is just being melodramatic.

Did someone call you that? I must have missed it.


2) As for having numerous contacts in the industry (laughs), I really don’t. I’m pretty new, truth be told. A rookie. Maybe that gives me a unique perspective to the rest of you hardened publisher folk. I know I have a lot to learn, and I’ve certainly been given things to think about during this discussion. I still think I’m right, though, and that I wasn’t misinterpreting some of the snobbish and conceited comments.

I don't see how being a rookie could give you a unique perspective when people here started out in exactly the same position. Having an industry background gained from years of experience as writer, editor, publisher, marketer etc -- now that would be...well, not unique...but it would certainly provide a useful perspective.
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,453
Reaction score
4,938
Location
In chaos
Ok, I can see we’re getting a little bit off topic here. My original point was that I thought AEC deserved a little more cautious optimism and not to be publicly butchered based on the fact that they’re simply new, and maybe a little inexperienced. Penguin was once new, until they weren’t.

Here's the thing, highborn.

Publishing is a complicated business, and the way it works best is often counterintuitive.

There is an extraordinarily high failure rate among new publishers. When they're inexperienced too? They're almost guaranteed to fail to publish good books well, and to sell them in decent quantity.

It doesn't matter how well-intentioned publishers are if they don't know what they're doing.

When publishers fail to sell enough books they either go out of business, disappear without officially closing their doors, or they look towards their authors for the money they need to keep going.

None of these options are good for the writers who sign up to them. Very often, the books they publish are lost to their authors: that's heartbreaking for the authors concerned. And even if the publishers are careful to revert the rights to those books back to their authors before they close down (which few do, because they just don't understand that they should do this), the books have already been published and few new publishers are prepared to consider them.

That's why it's essential that writers fully understand the risks involved in signing with a new or inexperienced publisher. No matter how good the publisher's intentions are, the cost to the writer might well be very high indeed.

The reason I chose to defend them was because, well, I’m no stranger to bullies. Whether or not this lot intended to come across that way, I don’t know. Maybe I’m just being overly sensitive. But hey, a forum is meant to be a contest of ideas, right?
Please, highborn: re-read the thread. Consider that there's a big difference between close examination and attack. I really don't think anyone here was bullying the publisher, or the people behind it: we were all trying to assess its value for us as writers, and pointing out the pros and cons of working with AEC.

Calling me “sick” and “cold” is just being melodramatic. All I meant was that post-mortem authors tend to sell well, as in Miss Harrison’s case. No offence was meant, and I sincerely hope that none was taken. I’m not too familiar with her work, but by all accounts she was a beautiful woman with a beautiful mind. I just hope, if nothing else, I can get that point across.
I am a moderator here so I can see the content of deleted posts, and I can't see anywhere where you were called "sick" and "cold". I did find your comment about Ms Harrison offensive, and I'm grateful that you have apologised for it.

A few more points:

1) I use the term “virtually” to mean “so similar that who gives a damn if you swing one way or the other”.
We're writers. Words matter: use them with precision. You cannot reassign meanings to suit your case.

2) As for having numerous contacts in the industry (laughs), I really don’t. I’m pretty new, truth be told. A rookie. Maybe that gives me a unique perspective to the rest of you hardened publisher folk. I know I have a lot to learn, and I’ve certainly been given things to think about during this discussion. I still think I’m right, though, and that I wasn’t misinterpreting some of the snobbish and conceited comments.
Being inexperienced does give you a new perspective: it means that you're almost certainly missing all the red flags that others with more experience will clearly see.

And please stop calling people names. So far you've called people here bullies, snobs, and conceited: that's not appropriate, nor does it help your case.

I know this might sound a little self-defeating, but credit where it’s due: “Schrodinger’s author?” Fun.

I think that’s about it.

Oh, and I don’t mind being called a sockpuppet. I’m just speaking up about what I think is right. Call that what you want.

I thought the Schrodinger's Author comment was brilliant. Writers can be very good with words sometimes.

I applaud you for speaking out for what you think is right. But please don't mistake our words of warning for unwarranted negativity: it's important that we, as writers, are aware of the potential pitfalls as we try for publication. We have to understand how publishing works, and know what to look out for and what to avoid.
 
Last edited:

highborn

Registered
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Location
Melbourne
Here's the thing, highborn.

Publishing is a complicated business, and the way it works best is often counterintuitive.

There is an extraordinarily high failure rate among new publishers. When they're inexperienced too? They're almost guaranteed to fail to publish good books well, and to sell them in decent quantity.

It doesn't matter how well-intentioned publishers are if they don't know what they're doing.

When publishers fail to sell enough books they either go out of business, disappear without officially closing their doors, or they look towards their authors for the money they need to keep going.

None of these options are good for the writers who sign up to them. Very often, the books they publish are lost to their authors: that's heartbreaking for the authors concerned. And even if the publishers are careful to revert the rights to those books back to their authors before they close down (which few do, because they just don't understand that they should do this), the books have already been published and few new publishers are prepared to consider them.

That's why it's essential that writers fully understand the risks involved in signing with a new or inexperienced publisher. No matter how good the publisher's intentions are, the cost to the writer might well be very high indeed.

I get it. Good intentions don't equal sales. Authors need to be prepared, etc. All good points, but my main issue is that people are expressing an "unwarranted negativity" that is frankly vicious and unhelpful.

I am a moderator here so I can see the content of deleted posts, and I can't see anywhere where you were called "sick" and "cold". I did find your comment about Ms Harrison offensive, and I'm grateful that you have apologised for it.

I can see it. It just says "Valkyrie has deleted this comment". It's above comment #67.

I'm not sure why you would find it offensive to begin with. Posthumous authors sell well. Period. That's all I was saying. Let's not use a real woman's death to make me out to be some kind of cruel charlatan, eh? Being a writer doesn't give you the right to mince words.

We're writers. Words matter: use them with precision. You cannot reassign meanings to suit your case.

Now you've just contradicted yourself. Remember your own comments about promotion and marketing?

*boggle*


And please stop calling people names. So far you've called people here bullies, snobs, and conceited: that's not appropriate, nor does it help your case.

It is completely appropriate because that is what's happening. It distresses me that as a moderator, you're neither impartial nor able to see when people are being excessively defeatist - especially on a renowned board such as this, which could easily tip the scales for a small publisher like AEC.

Smells like an abuse of power.

It's funny, because from your comments I can clearly understand that you get what I'm on about - close examination vs. attack. Unwarranted negativity. And yet we have completely different view points regarding what is dismissive, vain and nasty.

I'm not sure what more I can say that I haven't already, but hit me up if you have any more questions.
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,453
Reaction score
4,938
Location
In chaos
I get it. Good intentions don't equal sales. Authors need to be prepared, etc. All good points, but my main issue is that people are expressing an "unwarranted negativity" that is frankly vicious and unhelpful.

Let me refer you back to some of my earlier comments in this thread.

I made this one on 13 May last year, in response to Raymond Vogel's suggestion that people might "pummel" him for his forthcoming post:

Hello, Mr Vogel, and welcome to AW.

We insist on good standards of respect and courtesy here, and won't put up with "pummeling". If you see any posts that you find rude or objectionable, click on the Report Post button--it's the little red triangle with the exclamation-mark inside it, down in the bottom left of each post. That'll bring the post to the moderators' attention, and make sure it's dealt with appropriately.

And then there's this one from 16 March of this year, which I addressed to you in response to your earlier complaints about the tone in this thread:

It's not snobby at all to point out the problems we see when they're valid and are presented without being disrespectful. If you see anything here that you think is disrespectful then there's a "report post" button you can click, which will bring it to the attention of the moderators of that room. Honest debate is good; sneering and belittling anyone is not, and we won't stand for that here.

I've read back through this thread and while I do see AEC coming under close scrutiny I don't see any bullying or overly negative behaviour.

I'm not a moderator for this room so I don't get any notifications of reported posts, so I don't know if you have taken my advice. Have you? If not then please remember that it's far more effective to report specific posts than to keep alleging non-specific bullying in-thread, so if you really are concerned about this, that's what you need to do.

I can see it. It just says "Valkyrie has deleted this comment". It's above comment #67.

I can click back and see how the post read before it was deleted. You were not called "sick" and "cold".

I'm not sure why you would find it offensive to begin with. Posthumous authors sell well. Period. That's all I was saying. Let's not use a real woman's death to make me out to be some kind of cruel charlatan, eh? Being a writer doesn't give you the right to mince words.

And yet I, and a few others, did find your post offensive. Don't tell us that we're somehow at fault for that: you don't get to tell other people what to feel, or which feelings are valid.

And I don't think anyone is using "a real woman's death to make [you] out to be some kind of cruel charlatan": we're using your own words to point out that you've been insensitive and offensive. As you said, "Being a writer doesn't give you the right to mince words" (and note that "mince words" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means).

Now you've just contradicted yourself. Remember your own comments about promotion and marketing?

No, I haven't contradicted myself.

I clarified the difference between marketing and promotion; and I urged you to use words with more precision.

I've now done that again.

How is that contradicting myself?


If you're going to do that, you need to make sure you've got something to boggle at.

It is completely appropriate because that is what's happening. It distresses me that as a moderator, you're neither impartial nor able to see when people are being excessively defeatist - especially on a renowned board such as this, which could easily tip the scales for a small publisher like AEC.

Please re-read my earlier comment, where I said this to you:

Please, highborn: re-read the thread. Consider that there's a big difference between close examination and attack. I really don't think anyone here was bullying the publisher, or the people behind it: we were all trying to assess its value for us as writers, and pointing out the pros and cons of working with AEC.

Note that if AEC's business can't tolerate our scrutiny then there's a problem with its business, not with our scrutiny of it.

Smells like an abuse of power.

If you really think that, report me to the board's owner, Macallister. Allegations against the mods are taken very seriously here: we won't put up with mods acting inappropriately, just as we won't put up with non-mod members being rude to anyone.

It's funny, because from your comments I can clearly understand that you get what I'm on about - close examination vs. attack. Unwarranted negativity. And yet we have completely different view points regarding what is dismissive, vain and nasty.

I'm not sure what more I can say that I haven't already, but hit me up if you have any more questions.

I do understand the difference between examination and attack.

I don't see anyone attacking AEC.

I do see you making an attempt to attack me, however, with your allegations of abuse of power, but you're making a bit of a fist of it.

Now, here's what I want you to do.

Stop complaining about bullying and inappropriate behaviour in this thread, and do something constructive about it: when you see that behaviour in future, USE THE "REPORT POST" BUTTON.

Start discussing whether or not AEC is a good choice for the writer. Tell us what makes them a good or bad choice. Explain why those things are important.

And most importantly, stop diverting the discussions here. We're meant to be deciding whether or not AEC is a good or bad choice for writers, not discussing whether or not we're being unfair to AEC by having this discussion in the first place.
 

AW Admin

Herder of Hamsters
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,702
Reaction score
6,067
Location
On the Server
highborn

I'm the Admin of this server. I approved your membership. That meant Googling you.

I think you need to come clean here.

I also think you need to step back and consider how you're coming across.

You're not reading well; you're implying things that simply aren't true. And you're attacking a mod whose publishing credentials as an editor and an author are impeccable; I know because I've seen her work, and I know people she's worked with.

What are your editing credentials? What specifically is your connection with AEC Stellar Publishing?
 

LeslieB

Geek Unique
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
507
Reaction score
95
Location
Florida - A sunny place for shady people
My sister-in-law was a rocket scientist before she changed careers. (Well, rocket engineer to be more accurate.) She is a wonderful, intelligent person who throws herself wholeheartedly into everything she does. But if she announced tomorrow that she was opening a publishing company, I would not sub a book to her because she has no publishing experience.

Those of us who want to be professional writers aren't looking for friends, or a new family, or a company that is touting a whole new way of doing things. Personally, I am completely happy with the doddering old-fashioned method of putting a book on bookstore shelves where hopefully lots of people will buy it. Unless a publisher can do that, I'm simply not interested.
 

Valkyrie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
143
Reaction score
4
Location
California
Highborn,
Owner of the deleted comment here. I never said your comment was sick. I said something along the lines of cruel and insensitive, and that both the writer and her family would have disagreed about her death having been the best promotion for her book. I deleted said comment because it has nothing to do with this thread, and wasn't adding anything to the conversation.

Furthermore, I deleted it two days before you responded, so I don't know why you thought it said "cold" and "sick" when you couldn't have seen its contents in the first place, according to the date of the post in which you made your first accusation.

Best wishes to you and your friend.
 

Elizabeth George's book Write Away