Two Dirt Roads, the Dalai Lama, and Me

So this is what I would have wanted the name of my blog post to be:

“In Which the New York Times Associates Douglas Preston with the Dalai Lama, High-Speed internet, and Henry David Thoreau All In One Sentence.”

But it’s too long, so I went with what I went with.  And here’s what it seems to be about.

Recently, the New York Times did an article about Douglas Prestson and his letter to the people. It’s quite a slanted article, and probably hopes to drum up support for what Preston seems to want, which is for ebook prices to stay high. I commented on the article, which although clever got swallowed up in the sea of comments so quickly, I couldn’t even admire it. There are so many responses to the article, that you have to scroll for hours and hours to read them all. Most of them disagree. Vehemently.

Here is how the article begins:

“Out here in the woods, at the end of not one but two dirt roads, in a shack equipped with a picture of the Dalai Lama, a high-speed data line and a copy of Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” Amazon’s dream of dominating the publishing world has run into some trouble.”

Do you see what’s going on in that sentence? “Out here in the woods?” It’s as if Preston is writing in the wilderness! Poor fellow.

And there are “not one but two dirt roads.” This must be quite a trek for Preston as he makes his way from his “summer” home to his writing desk.

Also, the “shack” is equipped with a variety of items that seem to want to associate Preston with various iconic people and things to make him more…what? An “aw shucks” kind of guy? An “independent guy?” A reincarnated teacher? A “really fast” guy? (That’s the high speed internet part, which, although stuck in the middle like a red-headed stepchild, is meant to be seen in the same stream of association.) Heck, they could have thrown in the Baby Jesus and Santa Claus for a whole lot less, or included other well known icons, why stop at only three?

Some of what Preston expresses in this article makes sense to me. He’s worried about his loss of income if the issues between Amazon and Hachette aren’t solved. I’m almost sympathetic.

I would be sympathetic still, if, in fact, I’d not seen a picture of the “shack”  that the NY times mentions ad nauseam.

Here is the shack belonging to Douglas Preston.

You can see it belongs to him; that’s him lounging in front of it. I’ll wager the shack cost him between $35,000 and $50,000 to be built, with or without running water. It certainly doesn’t leak in bad weather, and probably has a lovely view. (My cost assumptions are based on what I know about the Tiny House movement, building costs, building costs in the distant wilderness called The Maine Woods, and so on. I would stand corrected if I could get the deets.)

Here is a picture of another shack, somewhat more fitting and accurate of the definition of shack. Of note, it’s in Maine, in the woods, also. It is not nice, doesn’t have a nice view, nor does it have a fairly well to do author standing in front of it. I’ll wager it leaks in bad weather, and is probably infested by mice.

And if we really want to talk “shack” here’s a picture of some shacks, real shacks, where people have to live, rather than opting to go when they get a cool idea for a novel. A shack is usually defined as a dwelling for poor people who can’t afford anything more. I’m not sure how that matches with the New York Times’ definition, but there you go, a perfect example of the state of journalism today.

Anyway, in the  “shack,” Mr. Preston wrote a letter about what Amazon was doing to authors, etc.

The New York Times made sure to up the ante on the Thoreau association by mentioning that you get to the “shack” by either of two dirt roads — as if implying, somehow, that the passage along the dirt roads gives evidence to Mr. Preston’s dearest desire to be part of a grass roots movement to save books from perdition. Or something.

Here’s the type of road that Preston has to trudge down. I’m fairly certain that anyone would enjoy walking down a dirt road such as this one.

On the other hand, there are millions of people who exist on the margins of dirt roads that are not as nice as Preston’s dirt road, but instead are dirt roads upon which people have to haul water, or herd cattle, or carry produce. I feel certain that the following picture is not the dirt road the NY Times had hoped to convey in the minds of its readers, but it’s a reality for more people in the world than have read Thoreau or even heard of him.

I’m truly not sure how walking down a pleasant dirt road in a forest in Maine and writing something in a cute little shack such as Preston owns makes it more valuable, more important, or more true, than, say, writing in one’s basement, or one’s laundry room, or in a dreary attic somewhere. As every author knows, you have to find what makes you comfortable and productive. I’m sure Mr. Preston is comfortable in his “shack” but it doesn’t make what he writes more true, valuable, important, or even entertaining. Besides which, the “shack” probably costs more than a lot of people make in a year. I can hardly feel sorry for him.

So about this letter of Preston’s. It was, as the New York Times carefully explains, “composed in the shack” and “spread through the literary community. As of earlier this week 909 writers had signed on…Some writers wholeheartedly supported the letter but were afraid to sign, Mr. Preston said. A few signed it and then backed out, citing the same reason.”

Now I have to ask – if some were afraid to sign, didn’t want to sign, what were they afraid of?

At any rate, the article continues, in a Pro-Preston vein:

“Amazon supporters point to a rival petition on Change.org. It is a rambling love song to the retailer….The petition has 7,650 signatures. By comparison, a 2012 Change.org petition calling on Amazon to ban the sale of whale and dolphin meat drew over 200,000 signatures.”

So Preston’s letter has 900 or so signatures.

In response, the Change.org petition has almost 8,000 signatures.

But in spite of the fact that the Change.org petition has more signatures than the Preston one, that is, more support, the NYT dismisses the overwhelming support of the Change.org petition by saying that another petition of an unrelated nature (to ban the sale of whale meat) got over 200,000 signatures.

The subject matter is completely different, however, the New York Times is saying that the people who agreed that we shouldn’t be eating whale meat are more in number than the people who agree that Amazon should keep its prices low! I’m afraid I don’t see the relationship there. But the NYT can make all the associations it wants, I guess, since it’s redefining words now.

Additionally, the letter is “scheduled to run as a full-page ad in The New York Times this Sunday…..The Times ad, which cost $104,000, was paid for by a handful of the more successful writers.”

That’s almost my favorite part of all this strangeness: that a handful of the more successful writers are going to shell out $104,000 for an ad in the NY Times, an ad which will contain Preston’s letter, which is already available on the interwebs for free!

Firstly, the cost of this ad won’t even be a spit in the ocean compared to what the “more successful writers” make. It is, in fact, more money than most people see in a year.

Secondly, wouldn’t it have been more useful to take that $104,000 and, oh, I dunno, buy food for the hungry? Or literacy for the those who can’t read? Or medical care for those people who actually live in shacks? And who really have to walk down dirt roads (in all weather) just to get anywhere?

And thirdly, what is it exactly that Preston et al hope to gain by their $104,000 receipt? I’m not really sure. Perhaps some grass roots support, or some organic swell of folks who believe that writing letters in a “shack” such as Preston owns is a real hardship and if only these writers made some more money, perhaps they could buy a cup of coffee to warm their hands around while they dreamt up more things in heaven and earth, for which we would be required to pay $25.00 for the hardback, and $15.00 for the ebook.

I’m not sure what Preston wants at this point. But if you’re still keen to read, I’ll include the links to some excellent posts, with responses by avid and intelligent people:

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/08/2014/plot-thickens-as-900-writers-battle-amazon/

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/08/david-streitfeld-embarassment-to-new.html

There’s also discussion about James Patterson who is evidently weeping about “the biggest quality drought in the history of novel writing?” To which I have commented that a) who is James Patterson to determine what the reading public thinks is quality, and b) if there is a drought, then Jeff Bezos is the Rainmaker.

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/08/2014/james-patterson-if-i-were-amazons-jeff-bezos/

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-we-were-james-patterson.html