Once Upon a Bookshelf

This is something I rarely discuss with people, but due to a link that Chris shared with us in her most recent Friday Bookish Buzz, I’ve decided to come up onto my soap box.

My dad has macular degeneration – basically what that means is that he’s lost sight in the middle of his eye. So he’s legally blind. He’s had it for many years now, and it’s a tough thing for him to have to deal with. He can’t work, he can’t drive, he has a hard time with reading. And while he never particularly enjoyed reading books, if he did there would be a very limited number of books that would be available to him in public library systems.

This problem is genetic – his sister also has macular degeneration, and there is a chance that my brother and I could develop it later in life. So when I talk about this passionately, it is because I know there is a very real possibility that I could be in my father’s position at some point in the future.

And that terrifies me.

The fact that I could not be able to do as much of a lot of the things I do right now and really take for granted. Wouldn’t be able to do graphic design work, wouldn’t be able to play on my computer, wouldn’t be able to watch my favourite movies, wouldn’t be able to drive, wouldn’t be able to read. Gah! Not able to read; could I even survive without my books?

Some libraries have a good selection of audio books, but not all. Some libraries are getting better at it. But for people who either don’t like audio books, or live in areas that don’t have libraries with a large selection of books for those who are blind or partially sighted, it makes it very difficult. The CNIB (Canadian National Institute of the Blind), though, has a library of books that they circulate to those who are blind or partially sighted – either audio books, books in braille, or other digital formats that can be read by computers. But they don’t have the funding they need to get a larger selection of books produced – they have been relying fully on charitable donations, but it’s just no longer enough. They have been asking the governments (federal, provincial, territorial) to help with the funding for getting more books. And at this point, Canada is the only G-8 country that does not publicly fund any library services for people who are blind.

The CNIB says,

Without such funding, people who rely on the CNIB Library will face a significant erosion of services – including increased wait times and fewer books – beginning this April. The library’s aging infrastructure will suffer from the lack of maintenance and much-needed upgrades. This will happen in an already untenable situation where just five per cent of written information ever makes it in to an accessible format – and most of what does is produced by CNIB.

It’s heartbreaking to think that people who are blind or visually impaired cannot get access to the same books and written information that the rest of the population gets. In fact,

it’s inappropriate to expect blind and partially sighted Canadians to rely on a charity to pay for a service that other Canadians enjoy as a basic right of citizenship. Furthermore, CNIB can no longer sustain the $10 million annual operating cost of the library without partnerships with all levels of government. Today, the CNIB Library is in jeopardy, and its services in danger of eroding. Partnerships are needed now to ensure the future sustainability of the library and avoid service reductions.

Right now, the CNIB library has more that 80,000 titles, but there are over 800,000 blind and partially sighted people in Canada. There are some areas in Canada that have committed to help with funding – Ontario, Alberta and the Northwest Territories – but it’s not enough. The funding that they are looking for will help increase the number of titles available, will help prevent an increase in wait time to get books, and will allow the technology used to in the library to be upgraded.

Please, if you are living in Canada, head over to the Right to Read website. Learn more about what’s going on, and please send a letter to your members of parliament to show your support of the campaign.

This article from the Globe & Mail made me laugh. Apparently, authors shouldn’t waste their time making ‘friends’ online, and apparently social networking doesn’t work. FYI, yo.

Yeah, I feel strongly about this subject. I believe that social networking works. I’ve done it for my job, and if you can make it work, then yeah, it can be an awesome thing. But there’s no set way that will tell you exactly what works and what doesn’t – it varies depending on your product, your audience, etc. And it can take a lot of time and effort in order to make it work. Is it worth it? If you can get it right, then hells yeah.

Anyway! About the article!

There were a couple of bits that really had me scratching my head. The first was when he was talking about what kind of books people read, and how to market said books. One sentence in particular says, “The question of how to market books – particularly fiction books, which few people want to read – is one of the most hotly discussed in publishing.” Yeah, I’ve no doubt that the marketing of books is discussed in publishing. I do a lot of marketing stuff at my job (albeit, not in publishing), and I know that marketing is an integral part of growing and even maintaining ANY business. But to say that few people read fiction seems a little… hard to comprehend for me. Are there really that few people who read fiction compared to people who don’t? If you look at all people in the world, then I suppose the subset of people who read fiction WOULD be small – but if you just look at people who read, is the subset of fiction readers really that small?

But the big paragraph that made me go “huh” was this one:

Sure, I believe that an author’s friends and family might join a book’s promotional Facebook group out of kindness, as a show of support for that author. I don’t believe that these supporters will necessarily create a flare of publicity that will cause other non-friends to go out and buy a book. I believe that an author might create a small or even a large following for a blog about the writing and publishing of a book, or a blog of amusing personal reflections, but the people who read such a blog are interested in the author’s life or the author’s personality and not necessarily in her fiction. The people who buy her book, as opposed to reading her blog, are those who would buy it anyway.

Not necessarily. I probably wouldn’t have heard of a lot of authors if they didn’t have a blog, or an LJ, or if they didn’t vlog, or didn’t belong to various online communities. I wouldn’t have picked up their books had I not had exposure to them online, either because it wasn’t available where I was shopping or it didn’t look like something I would typically read. So what drives me to buy their books after getting exposure to their online presence? It’s their voice. The way they write their blogs. Yeah, if I enjoy that, then I’m pretty sure I’m going to enjoy their books. Take, for example, Maureen Johnson. Read her blog a long time before reading any of her books. And her blog is brilliantly written. So of course, I’m going to expect that of her books. But I may not have picked up those books before had I not specifically been looking for them, because they look a little chicklit-ish, and I have a tendency to rant over chicklit too much.

So! Just for kicks, let’s see some of the author’s I’ve read books by because of their online presence. And I’m talking the author, not the publisher or a marketing company. The actual authors themselves. As mentioned, I read Maureen Johnson’s blog long before I read any of her books. Same with Cassandra Clare and Maggie L. Wood. Big fan of John Green before reading his books. Again with Cleolinda Jones. Sure it’s not a huge percentage of authors I read. But at the same time, if you think about it like that, well… say one person reads Not Yet Popular Author’s blog. And because they find Not Yet Popular Author’s blog relatable/awesome/hilarious/whatever, they decide to buy Not Yet Popular Author’s book. And they love it. So they tell other people using their blog/LJ/twitter/youtube account/etc. about Not Yet Popular Author’s book and/or blog. And so the social networking and having a blog for the author definitely pays off.

As far as saying that social networking won’t bring your book to the bestseller list immediately, well, maybe not. But who is to say that traditional marketing that is done for your book will guarantee a spot on the bestseller list? And wouldn’t it be better to use both traditional and non-traditional means to market your book and your brand? That way, for example, you’re going to get the people who only read the newspapers and don’t user social networking, but you’re also going to get those who don’t read traditional newspapers but are big on Twitter (or whatever big thing happens next).

I think the author of this article missed a really big point – that the purpose of social networking is to build relationships. And the best way companies or authors or whatever can use social networking is by remembering that. The reader, or the customer, is going to be receptive if they feel they are interacting with a real person, not a corporation, or not someone trying to get money from them.

No, you’re not always going to get some crazy underground movement through social media that surges said author’s popularity to NYT Bestseller List overnight, but to say that the blog won’t cause people to buy your book unless people were going to buy your book anyway is silly. It’s all about exposure. If you don’t get your name out there, how are people going to find you?

Not to say that the whole article made me shake my head. He does have some good points. Yes, if all books are being advertised the same way, but one book just uses paper fliers stapled to telephone poles, then that one book whose paper flier you see stapled to a telephone pole will stick out for you. Obviously. If it’s the only one doing that, yes. It’s different, it’s caught your eye, and ultimately it’s done through that sort of advertising what bunches of others have been trying to do through different means. But if everyone did that, you’d stop noticing it after awhile. It would go the same way through other media – like say you were in a movie theatre and a book trailer showed with the other coming attractions. Yeah, book trailers are big online but not in theatres, so that specific one would be different and would catch you eye.

But to say that social networking doesn’t work for authors trying to sell books – that’s just a silly supposition!

What do you think? Do you find that social networking influences what you read? Are you more likely to read a book where you don’t know about the author through social networking? Are you more likely to read something that is advertised on a poster stapled to a telephone pole, or one that you hear of through an author’s blog/twitter account/facebook page/whatever?

Do you all want to hear something funny? (Must warn: I get rather sarcastic at points after the second comment.)

About a year ago, I read and blogged about Fancy White Trash by Marjetta Geerling. I stated that I couldn’t empathize with or relate to any of the characters and that it reminded me of an episode of Jerry Springer.

I got a comment two months after I posted it from one Michael that read like this:

I have to disagree with you on your review. I read this book and was laughing so hard my stomach hurt. I think you misinterpreted a farce as a serious book about relationships.

Okay, cool. You disagree. I don’t like every book that other people do, and I like a lot of books that other people don’t. I’m okay with that. Just because I don’t like a book doesn’t mean that no one else is allowed to. I mean, look at Janet Evanovich’s books. Look at Lauren Willig’s books. I know a lot of people that LOVE them, but I don’t.

(Also? I never said that I took this book seriously. In fact, I rather believe I used the phrase “perversely entertaining” towards it.)

I didn’t really give much thought to the comment originally. Until today, when I got this comment from the same Michael:

Apparently the American Library Association disagreed with your review and selected it for both their 2009 Best Books for Young Adults and their 2009 Rainbow List.

Good for them! But I didn’t think that the ALA regularly consulted blogs to make sure their list reflected what bloggers thought of books… Am I mistaken?

But why does the fact that it has been selected for these lists mean that I too must like it? Does the fact that I do not share the opinion of the ALA mean that my sense of like and dislike have been horribly skewed somehow? And if I don’t like a book that they like, does that mean… Oh my goodness! Yes! I do not agree with the ALA, I must be shunned as a blogger!

Seriously?

I mean, take P&P, a book which is hugely well-known and well-loved. There ARE some people in the world who (gasp!) Do Not Like It. So, why can’t people dislike a book that (quite frankly) will probably never be considered as well-loved as this classic work of literature?

So I did some research. Used my Mad Interwebz Sleuthing Skillz. Checked out Marjetta Geerling’s website. And it turns out that this Michael happens to be Geerling’s husband. (And how do we know this? Check out her website. Read her bio, and take note of the website that his name links to. Then check out the website his name links to on the second comment he left. Wow! Same website – same person!) It sounds like he’s just a little grumpy that I didn’t like his wife’s book, eh?

All I can say is that this incident has made me want to avoid all books by Marjetta Geerling in the future… and a few of the people that I’ve spoken to about this have mentioned to me that because of the way her husband has commented here, they will not read Fancy White Trash either. Hum.

But, it’s given me a good chuckle today, because really… the way he’s acting is the kind of publicity you want to avoid getting online. A few situations like this could seriously damage a company or person’s brand… and that includes authors. He’s only going to be hurting himself (and potentially his wife) this way, and he has definitely NOT changed my mind about whether or not I liked the book.