Connecting Readers and Writers discussion

Here is an interesting report from the WSJ about how e-readers are enabling people to read books they would have been embarrassed to be seen reading before:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...

Are there books on your e-reader you'd never display on your bookshelves?

That's a really good observation. Thank's for sharing. Now I'm off to read Catherine Cookson :)

P.

Yeah, I've been told by an industry insider that now is the time to write romance. Sadly for me my romance is ~barely~ a romance novel because I was too open with my students that I was writing it so I kept pulling back. And my other romance idea needs more time to germinate in outline form before I move to prose.

Paul wrote: "That's a really good observation. Thank's for sharing. Now I'm off to read Catherine Cookson :)

P."

I'd never choose an ebook to tead that I wouldn't put on my bookshelf.

Rob wrote: "Yeah, I've been told by an industry insider that now is the time to write romance. Sadly for me my romance is ~barely~ a romance novel because I was too open with my students that I was writing it..."

Rob, that's great news to hear on romance. If true, maybe it will help my suspense thriller Of Good And Evil. One reviewer said of the novel that it had the most genuine romance story that he has ever read about.

Absolutely! Sometimes I worry that steam might be coming off my kindle when I read it in public. ; )

Ooh, Elle. So naughty.

Was thinking only just the other day how good the Kindle would be for reading trash and complete filth!

Kindles are really good for heavy books too. A lot of college students download their textbooks on an e-reader. They are cheaper and it is easier to tote them around.

I have a lot of books that are just not available in print on my kindle.

It has helped me feel more freedom to try other genres that I'd worry about ruining my image otherwise. Can't look like a sappy girl reading romance, after all, especially when I write mysteries.

Brandon wrote: "I was once arrested for indecent exposure. It turned out it was the book I was reading. I may give this e-reader thing a try after all!"

Brandon, if you're that easily influenced by reading a book, don't, under any circumstances, read my suspense thriller OF GOOD AND EVIL. If you do, and carry out what you read, you'll be hung or shot before ever arrested!:)

Patricia wrote: "Here is an interesting report from the WSJ about how e-readers are enabling people to read books they would have been embarrassed to be seen reading before:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001..."

That's a great observation. I'd never be embarrassed to be seen reading anything. I find that the majority of people I meet or talk to don't even read, so no matter what I'm reading I'm still one step ahead of them!

Kevin wrote: "Patricia wrote: "Here is an interesting report from the WSJ about how e-readers are enabling people to read books they would have been embarrassed to be seen reading before:

http://online.wsj.com/..."

Sad as it is, I imagine the study also reflects the culture of anti-intellectualism that is fairly pronounced these days. It's not what's in the book ... it's that it's a book, period. Or as one person who followed me on Twitter (? My handle has "BOOKS" in it?!?) said: "I hate reading, LOL."

My daughter used to live in Brooklyn, and she said if she ever was curious about what to read next, she'd just look around the subway and check out what everyone else was reading. Not so much anymore! I wonder how much free PR authors are losing because of ebooks.

I've never thought about how I look when people see me reading what I read. And it never bothered me either. But now I think about it having an e-Reader definitely gives me leeway to read things like books I'm studying from (so they don't weigh three kilos in my hand. I don't recall ever being embarrassed about a book I was reading before, I don't think it'll change now.

Dee wrote: "My daughter used to live in Brooklyn, and she said if she ever was curious about what to read next, she'd just look around the subway and check out what everyone else was reading. Not so much anymo..."

Interesting. Not living in a city with public transportation I'd never thought of that.

I agree with Scarlett about weight. My kindle is so much lighter than most books. More and more of my students download their textbooks to an ipad or some other device. Now the campus looks less like a hunchback colony.

Dee wrote: "My daughter used to live in Brooklyn, and she said if she ever was curious about what to read next, she'd just look around the subway and check out what everyone else was reading. Not so much anymo..."

Yes, but weigh it against being able to give your work for free to hundreds of readers, to build a supportive readership base. Once readers have endorsed your work en masse, it's a lot easier to sell, period. That's why so many middle-market writers are making so much more money at the low e-book price point.

It's still down to a good book at a good price, though.

I'd never choose an ebook to read that I wouldn't put on my bookshelf."

I agree in that why would I want a book on my reader that I would not display on my shelf?

With that said, it seems that it is much more difficult to produce a cover that "pops" for an ereader than a regular trade paperback, and that may be the reason why some of them are so "edgy."

I've said more than once that my life is an open book. I don't worry about other people seeing me reading something risque. Once upon a time however I was not "out" about myself and worried about reading LGBT books in public, so I understand what a blessing the ereader can be to some people. For me the size and weight advantages are awesome though. I read lots of sci-fi and fantasy and some of those books can get heavy.

I don't mind anyone seeing what I read. However, I absolutely hate cheap porny manboob covers, and as I additionally dislike the hepped up, supermuscular, Arnie-style monkeybonkey six-pack and steroid look in men (I run, I don't just walk from this sort of guy), this kind of cover is a personal turn-off. With paperbacks I at least can wrap them in something more neutral, with the kindle I consistently have to look at them. Gah.

Steelwhisper wrote: "I don't mind anyone seeing what I read. However, I absolutely hate cheap porny manboob covers, and as I additionally dislike the hepped up, supermuscular, Arnie-style monkeybonkey six-pack and ster..."

Thanks, Steelwhisper. I was starting to worry because there's no skin on either of my covers.

Heh. ;) Do I need to loan you a few books...?

XD

Steelwhisper wrote: "I don't mind anyone seeing what I read. However, I absolutely hate cheap porny manboob covers, and as I additionally dislike the hepped up, supermuscular, Arnie-style monkeybonkey six-pack and ster..."

Manboob.......that made me laugh. I completely agree, those covers are so overdone and cheesy. It makes me think of those neckless guys that spend so much time in the gym they no longer look human. It's not attractive, don't they know that they are supposed to have necks?

Ashley wrote: "It's not attractive, don't they know that they are supposed to have necks? ..."

According to several self-publishing authors a cover with manboobs outsells one without 10:1, or thereabouts.

I actually have to talk myself into buying them.

Wow, that is very surprising. I actually avoid those books most of the time. Not because I don't enjoy the occasional manboob or steamy scene, but because it's like the book cover is saying 'sex only, substance missing'.

It's usually romance or erotic romance and apparently the majority of women buying either prefer the Arnold Schwarzenegger type of body--on display.

It puzzles me as well.

I have to remind myself though, about that whole don't judge a book by it's cover. It's so cliche, but at the same time, who knows what's inside those pages. I guess I should just read the blurb and ignore the no-necks.

The problem is when the target audience is one which appreciates less sex and you still have those covers.

great conversation here
always learn something from you guys
like the word
MANBOOB
incredible compression of the language
plus a twist of gender maybe
keep those brains working, steelwhisper

rj ray

Thanks, but it's not my invention ;)

I imagine this would apply to guys who decide to read Fifty Shades of Grey ("Just to see what all the fuss is about!")

SW knows where to borrow from
i tried reading 50 shades
dull stuff
second-rate language
stopped reading
rj ray

I'm pretty sure people aren't reading it for the high language... :-)

I wished they wouldn't be reading it for the rest either. Sigh.

Manboobs (not exactly work-safe):


(view spoiler)[


He probably has difficulty turning his head...


(hide spoiler)]

Steelwhisper wrote: "Manboobs (not exactly work-safe):




He probably has difficulty turning his head...

" NO NECK!!! LOL

Nice, thanks for the laugh, at least the first two had necks.

fascinating thread, i have read books in the past that i've not really wanted to show off the cover:) but never thought about how/whether that's altering my book choices for my ereader, i am a completely converted ereader, but for me COVERS still matter, i want to see something as beautiful on my virtual shelf as i do on my real one:)

virtual self
that's a good one
rj ray

I've stumbled across books I would have bought if not for the horrible cover. It definitely matters, but a bad cover can make a reader back away, and that is never a good thing.

I was all over this idea when I started reading ebooks. It's not so much about being embarrassed about what I'm reading - although it does let me get away with reading YA when I'm definitely not. It's about being able to read rather than respond to comments about the book from strangers.

Yea...um...

All I can say after seeing the first few comments by some of the female readers here is...females have it a lot easier reading that stuff in public than men do.

Just saying...

I bought a couple of the Twilight books second hand because my daughter keeps trying to take over the iPad when she sees me with it. I have then purely as a form of research for a novel I'm writing, and oh my god, if I believed burning books was ever good, I'd be having a bonfire when I'm finished. When I bought them, I felt compelled to inform the clerk I'm not a fan of the series. So when I can read on the iPad, I don't feel quiet so icky.

I read the Anne Rice Sleeping Beauty trilogy in public and didn't care who saw. (50 Shades has nothing on that trilogy.) I still enjoy the ol' marshmallow fluff that is The Babysitters Club. Those books are unintentionally hilarious. But I'm embarrassed to admit even owning two of the Twilight series and the Bree Tanner novella.

The thing about the good ol' A. N. Roquelaure books are that just about no one even knew they were smut. That was half the 'beauty' of it when I told friends that were Anne Rice fans that they were her secret books, then I'd watch their faces as they opened up to a random page, Two Girls One Cup style.

And don't get me started on the Babysitters Club. If that series were written today, I'm sure someone would try to turn that into smut.

Kevin wrote: "The thing about the good ol' A. N. Roquelaure books are that just about no one even knew they were smut. That was half the 'beauty' of it when I told friends that were Anne Rice fans that they wer..."

They are hardly smut. The term you're looking for is erotic fiction or erotic literature. There's a quite hefty distinction.

Roughly the same as between "In the Realm of the Senses" and "Beggin' for a Peggin'" or "Deep Anal Drilling 2".

;)

My apologies...I didn't mean to use smut as a term derogatorily.

I guessed as much. It's just irksome for those who write erotic fiction and get constantly mixed up with pornographers ;)

I think the Beauty trilogy is smut. The sex was not written was an accent to a larger story, but written to push the boundaries with sex as the focal point. She didn't even 'fess up to being the author for over a decade.

However it's all subjective. Some people consider anything with sex to be pornography (by definition, anything intended to sexually excite is porn), and some consider it to all be erotica and if someone gets aroused, then it's on that person. I know a lot of people who consider smut to be anything sexual, and it's not seen as a bad thing. I'm not really sure if there is anything considered to be bad these days, not with a culture that says all fantasies should be respected (frankly, some fetishes are frightening).

Kevin, I read a few stories about people who bought the books without realizing what they were buying, and who got a shock when Beauty was awakened from her sleep by a man doing things she didn't consent to.

Alys wrote: "The sex was not written was an accent to a larger story, but written to push the boundaries with sex as the focal point."

That's a curious definition of what is smut. To me that is the very definition of erotica: a sexual journey.

Smut is simply titillation to arouse to the point of masturbation (or consumption with a handy partner), just like visual porn.

The dictionary definition of erotica is "Literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire."

The dictionary definition of smut, as it applies here, is "filth." (It's common to say, "Oh, that's dirty!" without it being derogatory.)

Pornography is most inclusive. "Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity." In this case, printed material with explicit description of sexual activity.

The denotation of these words all boil down to the same meaning. Connotative meanings beyond that are subjective.