Proud to be on Amazon, A Company That's Fighting Trump

I was proud to read yesterday that Amazon is joining a lawsuit to stop Trump's immigration ban - proud because all of my books, published by traditional presses, small presses, and self-published, are for sale on Amazon.  I'm proud to have my books up there with this progressive organization that puts its money where its mouth is.

Amazon paved a path to future with its Kindle, which allowed authors to publish their own books and break free of traditional agents, editors, and publishers, who had to pass judgement on the writing, deem it fit, before the public could see it.  That started a revolution that's still proceeding.

When you walk into an Amazon physical store, you don't have to wait in line and see a teller when you want to pay - Amazon saves you the time of having to present your money or credit information each time you make a purchase.  In smart cities, and smart parts of cities, now being planned, apartments will have refrigerators that will receive a signal when you're low on milk or orange juice, and will relay that info to Amazon, which will send out a drone with your groceries.   Or not, if you'd rather not do this. Just as people who want a printed book don't have to read an ebook.  The future is about options, not compulsions and restrictions.  The future is about openness not bans.

Amazon is helping us make our future.  The people at Amazon understand that this is a future for all humanity - that the future is inherently international.   That's why they're joining the lawsuits against Trump and his immigration ban.

Trump hawks the past - plies the ugly prejudices of xenophobia and discrimination.  He will lose, just as he already lost the popular vote, and Amazon will be one of the forces that will help bring him down.

I'm proud to stand with Amazon and the forces of the future, the forces of people and democracy, in this fight.

Bosch Season 2: Dragnet with Uber

I just finished the second season of Bosch last night, streaming on Amazon Prime.   Like the first season, this gritty, fast-moving, wise-cracking LA cop series is the living incarnation of Dragnet - that iconic very early television series featuring Jack Webb as Joe Friday - which is to say, very good indeed.

There were some differences between this second season and the first.  Almost no romance - which I missed - but made up for by a stunner in the middle of the season, and one of the best shoot-outs ever on television a little after that.  Indeed, my main complaint about this second season is that it took a little too long to get there, after which the action was lightning on the screen.

The repartee, as it was in the first season, and in Dragnet, was nonstop and top-notch.  It's also pretty hip, with Bosch invoking Uber - not using the app but invoking the name - at one crucial juncture. As was clear in the first season, Titus Welliver inhabits this role with perfect intensity and laconic style, and there's no doubt that, although he's played cops on television often in this past, this will be the defining role of his career.

Jamie Hector is also excellent as Bosch's partner, and although this hasn't quite yet attained what Hector did as Marlon in The Wire, it's a strong contender.   Lance Reddick, whose career also began to catch fire on The Wire, is excellent as always in a top brass role, and in the second season he plays an especially pivotal role.

Back to the lack of romance in the second season, there are also fewer really memorable women on hand.   But this is just one season, and with Bosch already renewed for a third, there's every reason to look forward to stories with all sorts of people in bed in what has become the best cop show on television.

See also Bosch: First Half: Highly Recommended ... Bosch: Second Half as Fine as the First ... Bosch Season 3: Best Season So Far

                   another kind of police story 

#SFWApro

The Man in the High Castle on Amazon: Outstanding

Note: This review is just of the pilot (first episode); for a review of the complete 10-part series, see here; for further analysis, with spoilers, see here.

2015 is quickly shaping as a year of superb science fiction on screen - Predestination (the movie of "All You Zombies"), 12 Monkeys the TV series on the SyFy Channel, and now The Man in High Castle TV series - from the Philip K. Dick alternate history masterpiece - on Amazon.   I just saw the first episode and it is outstanding.

The story is that the US lost the Second World War to Nazi Germany and Japan, who split the US down the middle, with a small neutral zone between them.   The year is 1962, and the man in the high castle is part of the resistance, distributing movies on reels which show the United States and its allies not Germany and Japan winning World War II.  Whether these films are just propaganda, or reflections of the truer reality (in fact, our reality) that this man in the high castle has access to, remains to be seen - and is a great example of the flickering nature of reality that Dick is so well known for.

The fine touches and subtleties in the pilot are excellent - swastikas and Japanese suns popping on all kinds of public places including Times Square and the Golden Gate Bridge.   The tension between the Japanese and the Nazis is also well taken and well played.   The Nazis always considered the Japanese inferior, and its alliance with Japan was one of convenience.   On the Japanese side, although they're far from angels, their reign is not quite as brutal as the Nazis in the US East.   We see African Americans and all kinds of people in the West that the Nazis would find unacceptable.    In contrast, we get a grizzly scene in which the Nazis are incinerating "cripples".

Hitler is old and likely to soon die.  The Japanese correctly fear that his successor - Himmler or Goebbels or Goering - will drop nuclear bombs on the Japanese in San Francisco.  (In this alternate reality, Germany was most responsible for winning the Second World War because it beat the US in getting the atom bomb, and used it on America.)  This is the backdrop against which the American resistance, whatever it exactly is, most contend.

There's a kick-in-the-gut twist at the end of the pilot episode, which I won't tell you about, in case you don't know the story.  What I will say is that in pacing, storyline, and carefully constructed 1962 alternate history environment, The Man in the High Castle on television looks set to do Dick's novel some memorable justice.  I was quoted earlier this year about 2015 being the year in which streaming moved into really high gear and even dominance as the mode of television presentation.  The Man in the High Castle on Amazon certainly is a strong piece of evidence in favor of that prediction, and that's no alternate history.

Note added February 20, 2015: Delighted with the news that Amazon will be putting up at least one season - The Man in the High Castle could do for alternate history on television what Star Trek did for science fiction on TV in the past century.




What if the Soviet Union had survived into the 21st century
and Eddie and Cruisers were a real band?





more time travel and alternate history



podcast review of Man in the High Castle

Why I'm Against Net Neutrality

President Obama expressed his strong support for net neutrality during his visit to China the other day.  Here, briefly, is why I disagree.

First of all, I see any attempt to regulate non-criminal communication in the United States, via the FCC or otherwise, as a violation of the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech or press".   I think this prohibition must be taken seriously, lest we slide into societies such as the one in China, where media are controlled by the government.  This means the FCC should keep its hands off media even when their actions would support or enable good things.

But I don't think net neutrality is a good thing.  How many people watch movies and television shows on Netflix?   These statistics say 36 million Americans use Netflix in one way or another, and 63 percent of Americans use Netflix to stream.   How do you feel, when you're streaming a movie or television show on Netflix, when the movie freezes or the connection is lost?    Smoother streaming is what favored access on the Internet is all about.   Note that it would not lock out any person or IP.   It would just give better service to organizations like Netflix and Amazon, which serve millions and millions of people.

Favored, smoother streaming would also help mega-Internet providers such as Verizon and Comcast, which has led some people to say that unless we have net neutrality, big corporations will further dominate communication and media, and thereby American life.    But in our current configuration, huge corporations already dominate our media - traditional media, whether Viacom or Comcast, already have massive power and control over what we're able to see, and when we see it.   Streaming gives people another option - a greater choice over what they see, with more specific options - and, certainly, competition is good for the consumer of television and movies. Net neutrality would weaken this competition, by making Netflix and Amazon less effective.  The result would serve not consumers, but traditional media giants. 

Just to be clear: I would vigorously oppose any attempt to block anyone's access to the Internet, including charging people for that access.  But net neutrality is not needed to maintain those freedoms - and, indeed, it could impede them, by bolstering the corporations that emerged well before the current Internet, don't yet completely understand it, and therefore still stand in the way of the democratization of media that the Internet brings.

Netflix and Amazon  may well say they are in favor of net neutrality, because they would like to have smoother streaming - favored positioning in the Internet - without having to pay for it.   That makes sense in the short run, for any business - keep your expenses down.  But, in the long run, the revolution that Netflix and Amazon are spearheading will benefit from the advantage their programming gives consumers - in comparison to what consumers get from content on the cable providers - whatever Netflix and Amazon have to pay for this.   Net neutrality might save Netflix and Amazon some money today, but it will hinder their growth in the future - as well as other potential content providers such as Google and Apple - by keeping their streaming and content provision at speeds that could be faster and more reliable, and thus more attractive to consumers.


podcast about this issue

The Medium of the Book: Fifty Years After Understanding Media

In case you're in Waco, Texas on September 25, 2014, come see my Keynote Address at Baylor University's symposium, to mark the 50th anniversary of the publication of Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media.

An abstract of my Keynote follows.   My lecture will be recorded, and up on YouTube and other venues sometime after.

The Medium of the Book: Fifty Years after Understanding Media

A half century after the publication of McLuhan’s Understanding Media seems like a good time to examine the recent evolution of the book itself as a medium.   In Understanding Media, McLuhan quotes the French poet Alphonse de Lamartine’s circa 1830 observation that “the book arrives too late”.  Today, in a revolution as important as the introduction of Gutenberg’s press, books can arrive instantly anywhere in the world, via Kindles and other ebooks. But the most significant part of this development may pertain not to readers but authors, who can now can publish books without a publisher and within an hour or less after the book has been written.  The advantages and disadvantages of this bypassing of the traditional gatekeeper for authors and the world at large will be explored -- they are mostly advantages -- as well as the decline of gatekeeping in other media. Current conflicts, such as the dispute between Amazon and the traditional publisher Hachette will be examined. Connections between the evolution of the book and other facets of writing on the Web will be traced, including the capacity of readers to communicate directly and easily with authors, in modes akin to the “intelligent writing” that Socrates yearned for in the Phaedrus.

Amazon vs. Hachette: I Side with Amazon

The dispute between Amazon and publisher Hachette has dominated book talk on and off the Web this past month, as indicated in this biased anti-Amazon piece in the New York Times.

The gist of the dispute is that Amazon wants a better deal from big publishers, in terms of how much of a cut Amazon gets from its online retail sales of books.   The big publishers are resisting.  Amazon retaliated by making it more difficult for one of the big publishers, Hachette, to sell its books on Amazon.   Searches for Hachette books on Amazon result in advisories that best-selling books, which normally ship immediately, can be subject to a several week wait.   Among such best selling authors are J. K. Rowling and James Patterson.

Let me first say that I can well understand the frustration of would-be buyers and readers of Hachette titles.   No one likes delays, especially those that arise from a contract negotiation.  But I nonetheless side completely with Amazon on this one, and I say this an author published by major world-wide publishers as well as small presses, the latter of which has given me direct knowledge of how Amazon treats authors.

And that treatment by Amazon of me has been good - indeed, about as good as it can get.   I receive nearly instant reports of sales of my Kindle books, crystal clear earning statements, and monthly payments of my earnings that have been accurate to the penny.   I can't say the same about my experience as an author with traditional publishers, who are accustomed to paying once a year, twice if you're lucky, and whose royalty statements would give an accountant a headache, and certainly often give me one.   And the royalty statements are not always accurate.   I believe I have eventually received every cent that was due to me from my traditional publishers, but I don't appreciate the errors in the first place and the effort it took to correct them.

Maybe best-selling authors get better treatment from their publishers than a midlist author like me - I couldn't say.  But I do know that traditional publishers come from a tradition in which they think the author should be thrilled that her or his book is being published, and be happy for the fractional part of the sales received as a royalty.   In other words, the better deal that Hachette is trying to get from Amazon will likely not make much difference to most authors with traditional publishers.

Amazon has revolutionized the book world with its Kindle editions and the new relationships made with authors.   Understandably, the old guard may be less than comfortable with this.  But I'm convinced that the Amazon way is the road to the future, and I'm happy to be on it.

Further reading:  Here are three articles with analyses which, unlike the NY Times story, are not biased against Amazon.   Thanks to Mike Spinak for reminding me about them / bringing them to my attention:   Amazon v. Hachette: Don't Believe the Spin by David Gaughran,  More Thoughts on Hachette / Amazon  by Hugh Howey,  Updated: 'Amazon Derangement Syndrome' Characterizes Dispute Between Amazon and Hachette by Chris Meadows

#SFWApro

The Following 2.9: The Book Signing

Hey, I've been to my fair share of book signings as an author.  Sometimes the event is promoted to the hilt, you drive a couple of hundred miles to attend, and the only people in the audience are a drunk who passed out on a chair and two people who work for the book store.  Other times you don't give the event a thought, just show up, and you sell and sign a bushel of books.   But none of that holds a demented candle to what happened to Carrie at her book signing on The Following 2.9 last night.

First, Emma shows up with a book, and asks Carrie to dedicate it to Joe Carroll. Then all hell breaks loose, as two guys and then Emma wearing Joe-masks knife as many customers as they can.   I've heard it said that the era of book stores is over - physical and digital books are increasingly sold on Amazon.   Come to think of it, I've said this myself.   But I envisioned a more graceful demise of the book store than what we saw in The Following last night.   If I'm recalling correctly, it was the biggest massacre this season, exceeding the slaughter in the subway at the beginning.

And it marked the return of Joe Carroll to full command, which was long overdue.  Micah was probably the worst character on the series - as in ridiculous and played with buffoonery - in two seasons, and it was good to see him go.   It took nine episodes for Joe to get there, way too long, but at least now at last the players are in place for the battle ahead.

Although Joe's video could have been a chilling way to end the episode, the irony of the way the hour actually ended was also effective.   Just as Ryan and Carrie fall into each other's arms - with the nice touch of Ryan closing the door on the guards outside - we see where Mike rushed off to.   Claire is alive. Not such a surprise, given that Ryan never actually saw Claire die with his own eyes, just badly wounded.   But the relationship turmoil this sets in motion will be good to see.   Joe still loves her. Does Ryan?  Probably.  And we may also have our answer about why Mike has been behaving so oddly this season.

The Following is finally up and ready to fully maraud.

See also The Following Is Back for Its Second Season ... The Following 2.2: Rediscovering Oneself ... The Following 2.3: Coalescing ... The Following 2.4: Psycho Families and Trains ... The Following 2.5: Turning Tides ... The Following 2.8: Coalescing?

And see also The Following Begins ... The Following 1.2: Joe, Poe, and the Plan ... The Following 1.3: Bug in the Sun ... The Following 1.4: Off the Leash ... The Following 1.5:  The Lawyer and the Swap ... The Following 1.7: At Large ... The Following 1.9: All in a Name, Or, Metaphor in the Service of Murder ... The Following 1.13: At Last Something of a Day for the Good Guys ... The Following Season 1 Finale: Doing Dead

#SFWApro


Like a Neanderthal following in the current world? Try The Silk Code

Amazon, Big Brother, and the Kindle

My latest book, New New Media, was published by Penguin Academics on September 5, 2009.  As I point out on the first page, the book is about media so new that some of them - such as Twitter and YouTube - did not even exist five years ago.   I wrote the book as close to the bone of current events as possible.   The use of Twitter by protestors in Iran in June 2009, for example, is prominently included in the book's Twitter chapter.

But I turned the book's final revisions into the publisher in July, and the pace of important developments in the world of media has of course not slackened in the slightest.   This blog post is the first of a running series I will be posting here, there, and everywhere about these newest of new developments.

One of the most significant of such developments occurred in mid-July, when Amazon abruptly reached into the Kindles of every Kindle owner and removed George Orwell's 1984, which Amazon said it discovered it did not have the legal right to sell.   Kindle owners and the online world at large were furious, especially because annotations which Kindle owners had made on their purchased copies of 1984 were removed with the book.   If Amazon had wanted to demonstrate that the Big Brother information control in 1984 was alive and kicking in our digital age, it could not have put forth a better example.

Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos soon apologized, calling its solution to the copyright problem "stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles."  Amazon offered to either refund the $30 which the Kindle edition cost, or re-delver the copy of 1984, along with any absconded annotations.

But this series of events provides an instructive example of the difference between new media and new new media, which I discuss throughout the book.  "New" media exist on the Web, alongside of new new media.   But "new" media often operate in accordance with older, top-down principles of information control.   In the case of a newspaper online, such as The New York Times, the older approach is manifest in the selection of stories by editors.   In true new new media, stories are selected and even written by readers - that is the case in any personal blog.   In the case of iTunes and Amazon, consumers are charged for the content.  In new new media such as Twitter and YouTube, the content is free.

Amazon took a huge step into the past by not only charging for its Kindle books, but removing one of them after it had been purchased.   Its apology was certainly welcome.   But the lesson endures that there is a very big difference between older ways of doing business on the web, and the newer more liberated ways of new new media.