I don’t think anybody who’s up with publishing news hasn’t, by now, read the article at Publisher’s Weekly on JA Konrath’s deal with Amazon.

I also have Konrath’s blog on feed so was interested in reading his feedback on the article. Oh my. Konrath, while polite, doesn’t mince words, saying that “PW’s version of the truth is lacking in many areas.”

Oops. I tend to be fractally sceptical, so thought I’d compare something fairly easy to verify between the two accounts. PW says:

According to Nielsen BookScan, the first book in the Jack Daniels series, Whiskey Sour (2005), sold 32,000 copies, while the latest, Cherry Bomb (2009), has sold 4,000 copies.

Now, that’s damning, you have to admit. Oh what a has-been Konrath is! No wonder he moved to Amazon, the hack! But hold on. What’s this? Konrath says:

CHERRY BOMB, my last book in the contract, is not coming out in paperback until June [2010].

So, what sold 4,000 copies? Was it the paperback, as PW intimates (“Konrath … has been published by Hyperion in paperback for years”), or the hardback as Konrath insists? Amazon (and The Book Depository) confirm that the edition of CHERRY BOMB published in 2009 is, indeed, the hardback. So Konrath was right! Double oops. In light of this, one can only read PW’s statements, such as:

So Konrath essentially took a book no one wanted and instead of fully self-publishing it, signed with Amazon-Encore, which will bring the book out in paperback a year after the Kindle release this summer ….

as being somewhat spiteful. And here I was, thinking that a rag on publishing might be just a teeny weeny bit above spin. Le sigh.

It bit extra deep because I also got my free Top 5 daily email from Roubini yesterday. (What, you think I pay for my propaganda?) Because one of my abiding loves is economics (no, seriously), I have learnt to take anything to do with politics, economics, sociology, etc. with a grain of salt. So when I read this (I’ve highlighted the amusing bits):

The current financial and economic crisis—and in particular the still unfolding sovereign debt crisis in Europe—has highlighted a change in Germany’s attitude towards the so-called “European project” and the quickening pace of Germany’s emergence from what might be called its post-war transition. While in the past often putting its interests second to European unity, Germany has now become much more outspoken about its own political and economic goals. German pronouncements on everything from the need for new financial regulations to NATO expansion into former Soviet territory to the proper role of the ECB had already riled its partners to varying degrees, but since the onset of the Greek crisis, these tendencies have grown much more pronounced. Germany’s unilateral adoption of a deficit cap, initial resistance to a European bailout and, most recently, unilateral restrictions on short-selling all serve as evidence that the EU’s largest economy is increasingly focusing on policy goals more consistent with its own unique export-dependent, highly prudent economy, even if those aims come at the expense of its European partners.

the antennae immediately twitched. Germany as a selfless paragon of European unity? Where did this come from? The Germany we all know has pushed the agenda of the EU insofar as it would increase its own dominance in the group. Just ask any of the other nations. Remember Rumsfeld’s grizzles about “Old Europe” and “New Europe”? Germany and France were considered by him to be “Old Europe” — two big economies with their own axes to grind. Now we’re supposed to believe that Germany is some angel of European unity, selflessly putting itself last? Sorry, nobody who knows political history at all buys that.

The second snorting point is about Germany’s “unilateral restrictions on short-selling … com[ing] at the expense of its European partners.”

Oh, now Roubini is going past analysis and diving straight into fantasy. Anybody who doesn’t live within the censored media bounds of the USA knows that Europe can’t stand the kind of short-selling that inevitably led to the last financial collapse. Or, to put it another way, nobody in Europe likes short-selling, but Germany was the first to out-and-out forbid the practice. There is no “coming at the expense of” in this situation. There is no disagreement. The ONLY people who disagree with this move are the American investment banks.

I’ve noticed that Roubini often has a hidden agenda and it’s becoming more and more apparent in his group’s analyses. It’s still useful information. Remember that. It’s all useful information, but you gotta watch that spin.

TANGENT: And just to give you cognitive trauma coming on the heels of economic news, Two Lips gave the Cougars & Cubs anthology (featuring my short story, Singapore Sizzle) 5, er, kisses? Mouths? Lips? Whatever it was, it’s much appreciated. Thank you Two Lips!