Amazon "Kindle Worlds" Creates New Publishing Platform for Fan Fiction

Earlier this week, Amazon announced that it will be launching a new publishing platform called Kindle Worlds that would allow authors to publish fan fiction. Fan fiction refers broadly to stories written by fans of an original work (e.g., think of Star Trek or Harry Potter) that take place within the "universe" of that original work.

Fan fiction is generally not commissioned by the creator of the original work and, as such, has raised copyright issues in the past. What Amazon's Kindle Worlds platform would do is in essence legalize the process of not only creating fan fiction but profiting from it (with the consent of the creator of the original work). 

Amazon obtains a license from the creator of the original work and allows authors who write fan fiction to be published under that license. Amazon pays the creator of the original work a license fee out of sales revenue and promises authors (for works of at least 10,000 words in length) a royalty of 35% of net revenue.

Someone writing fan fiction in the universe of Els Oot and
the Mapmaker might, for example, write a story about Tonk
the mapmaker, when he was still young.

An example might be if I, as the creator of Els Oot and the Mapmaker, provided a license to Amazon under the Kindle Worlds platform. Another writer participating in Kindle Worlds would then be authorized to write a new story using Els Oot or one of the other characters in my book or that otherwise takes place within Els's world. Amazon would pay me a royalty for the use of Els's "world" and the author of the new Els Oot story would be paid a royalty as well based on the sale of his or her new story. Presumably, after paying both me as the owner of the "world" and the author, Amazon still nets a profit from the sale of the newly created story.

This platform, thus, is intriguing for writers on several fronts - as original content creators, as writers who potentially could create derivative works based on another author's books and as readers.

From the original content creator's perspective, the platform may allow the creator to monetize the "universes" that have already been created while at the same time encouraging fans to continue to interact with those worlds. Moreover, by participating in the platform, the content creator can also set guidelines that authors would need to follow (thus retaining some control over the overall "brand").

Writers, of course, have a new avenue for earning a living writing within a space that already has an established fan base, and readers may potentially have a wider selection of fan fiction from which to choose from.

There may be drawbacks to this platform as well, although we may need to better understand the terms of the Kindle Worlds platform before concluding on which concerns are truly problematic. One of the concerns raised by some is that authors of the new fan fiction might not retain any rights to the new content that they have created. They obtain a royalty on sale but, for example, if they created a new character, they might not have rights to license the new creation (and potentially Amazon or the "world" owner might be able to exploit the new creation in another story or work without compensating the author of the fan fiction).

Carol Pinchefsky has an interesting article on Kindle Worlds in Forbes addressing some of the concerns raised by the new publishing platform.

Also, as of now, Amazon appears to have only secured licenses from Warner Bros. Television Group's Alloy Entertainment: Gossip Girl, Pretty Little Liars, and The Vampire Diaries (meaning only these "worlds" are authorized under the platform). But more licenses are expected. 

Can E-Publishers Rely on Advertising Revenue?

Nate Wooley recently posted an article at The Motley Fool website in which he opens with the comment: "As part of the digital revolution, the idea that companies can be supported by advertising revenue is dying." He discusses how some publishers (e.g., The New York Times) have found some success in actually charging for online content (subscription) rather than relying on online advertising revenue. 

While written from an investment perspective, the questions raised about the viability of various online publishing models will be of interest to those interested in e-publishing as a business.

Also of interest in this area may be the Pew Research Center's articles on changes in the newspaper industry brought about by digital technologies and in particular a recent report by Mark Jurkowitz and Amy Mitchell on several success stories of newspapers' attempts at finding alternative sources of revenue: Newspapers Turning Ideas into Dollars.

Harper Collins to Launch New Line of Digital First E-Books in Fall 2013

Earlier this week, the publisher Harper Collins announced that they will be launching a new line of mystery e-books under the "Witness" label. These books will be part of the publisher's Impulse digital publishing platform and are "digital first" editions (that is, they are published first in e-book format even though a number of these titles also will be published in print). The new line of e-books is expected to launch in fall 2013.

The press release nicely summarizes some of the advantages of e-publishing that might be of interest to e-book or digital media mavens. "Our digital publishing [platform]," Harper's Liate Stehlik is quoted as saying "gives our existing author base the opportunity to stay in the public eye year-round, with strategically published short stories, essays, interstitials, and other creative works." The e-publishing platform, the company notes, also allows for "dynamic, market-responsive" pricing and allows for broader inclusion of new authors. There is also a new website that is planned that would allow for reader interaction.

Partly the press release seems directed at authors (who might otherwise want to self-publish). For those authors a primary difference between traditional and self-publishing probably lies in marketing assistance. Harper assures that authors in the Witness line of e-books would obtain not only full editorial support but an "individualized strategic marketing and publicity campaign." 

The royalties are also relatively attractive compared to print royalties: authors receive "a 50% royalty once their book sells 10,000 copies (initial royalties start at 25%)." They do not receive an advance but (beginning August 1) royalties are to be paid monthly.

Could Tablets be Obsolete in Five Years?

A Bloomberg article published today quotes Thorsten Heins, the CEO of Blackberry (maker of the smartphone of the same name) as saying, "In five years I don’t think there’ll be a reason to have a tablet anymore." He says that there may be "big screens" but not a "tablet as such." 

The quote has caused a lot of buzz. A lot of it suggests that Heins is simply wrong. Afterall, Apple in its most recent quarter sold close to 20 million iPads (up from about 12 million in the year-ago quarter). It is now also commonly argued that tablets are fast replacing PCs. Commentators remark in one way or another that perhaps the comment only makes sense to someone like Heins whose worldview has been "scarred" by his company's failed attempt at a launching a tablet (the much-maligned Playbook).

But the comment is interesting to me; it may or may not be wrong but it is the sort of comment that makes us broaden our thinking on what the future (even the near future) might hold. Based on today's trends, we see a world where tablets replace PCs and laptops. But what if, as Heins seems to suggest, the tablet were simply a "transitional" device? How could this be? 

Matt Rosoff in a post on Cite World explores this line of thought and what the future might be like if Thorsten Heins is not "crazy".

The argument might go something like this. Smartphones are becoming more and more powerful and can run increasingly complex applications. As computing power advances in these devices, we will begin to replace PCs, laptops and tablets with a single smartphone-type device. We might do this because we will become tired of carrying around multiple gadgets when one would do. We might do this because the smallest device gives us the greatest mobility.

True, we would still want to be able to see things on a large screen when we are at a desk, but we may simply be looking at connecting to "display monitors" - screens to which we can connect our one smartphone device. It might be something like docking a laptop at the office to connect it to a larger monitor and keyboard. We would instead dock our smartphone device (and, in Heins's future, it may even happen without wires). 

If we are travelling, we might bring a screen the size of a tablet but would be able to connect our smartphone device to it and use it simply as a "screen" - there might be a dock for it in this future tablet-size screen display. This arrangement relieves us from having to maintain contacts on different devices with different configurations and from having to synch data across devices (whether we use cloud services or not).

The smartphone-type device might in fact be a wearable gadget, such as an iWatch, Google Glass or some broad plastic band that goes around the wrist for that matter. 

The device would likely have certain basic features: 

1. It would be small but would have a more or less accessible user interface (for the times when we cannot connect to larger keyboards or screens). Perhaps the interface issues might be solved by ongoing developments in voice recognition technology.  

2. The device would have sufficient computing power and memory to run all the applications we currently use on laptops and computers. 

3. The device would be easy to connect to larger screens and keyboards (virtual or otherwise) when we need it. What if the link happens "automatically" as we come into proximity with the display screens?

It is hard to think of that world now when tablets have only so recently gained popularity with users and we are still carrying around multiple electronic devices. But what was the world like a mere five years ago?

What are your thoughts on the staying power of tablets? How might it affect you as a writer or reader? Or simply as someone who uses tablets or smartphones?

Thoughts on a Work in Progress: Can Children's Chapter Books Succeed as E-Books?

Sometimes I think you don't choose the book you want to write. The book chooses you. I have been trying to work on a myriad of writing projects but it seems the next book that will be finished will likely be another children's book. It will be a sequel to Els Oot and the Mapmaker, which, published last year, tells the story of a little mouse named Els Oot who goes on an adventure in search of a missing mapmaker (hence the title).

Cover for upcoming Els Oot and the
Baby Dragon by Nelson Suit

In the sequel, Els finds a baby dragon that had been egg-napped (kidnapped or perhaps "dragon-napped" while still in her egg) and attempts to help her return home. The book has the tentative title, Els Oot and the Baby Dragon.

Ever since publishing Mapmaker, I have been wondering whether children's chapter books can succeed as e-books. There are reasons for wanting the e-book format to succeed, as working on the sequel reminded me.

One of the challenges of publishing a children's chapter book (I think, like the Mapmaker, the sequel would be around grade 3 reading level) is the melding of text with illustrations. From a small independent publisher's perspective, the mesh of artwork with narrative often adds hours to formatting and preparing the book for print and e-book distribution. I find though that e-book formatting of illustrations seems more forgiving than print.

I love the illustration part of the chapter books. The illustrations provide additional dimensions to the book (and, for me, an excuse to step away from the text between editing sessions). The illustrations in my first book also seemed to have inspired young readers to do drawings of their own based on the book (yay for fan art!) and that was satisfying to see.

E-books (at least those formatted for use on tablets) provide additional potential for illustrations - in part, a big element is the possibility to use color economically. The illustrations in Mapmaker were mostly pencil drawings. I am experimenting with color though for the illustrations for Baby Dragon. The problem with doing color for print is that the printing cost would be somewhere around three times as much as the cost for black and white - meaning that a color print chapter book would need to be priced much higher (likely higher than the market for such books would allow). Indeed, most of the mass market paperbacks for children's chapter books I see from commercial publishers have black and white illustrations.

I can have the e-book edition formatted with illustrations in full color without additional distribution costs. I think that is a real advantage for the e-book format vs. print (not to mention the lack of shipping expense).

In Els Oot and the Baby Dragon, Els the mouse meets
a playful fish in a stream.

At the level that I am writing for, however, where a child is as likely to be reading by himself or herself as being read to, there is still a heavy reliance on print. Sales of Mapmaker were principally in the print version rather than e-book. There is something about children or adults being able to flip through the pages of the physical book (whether prior to purchase or after).

For good or bad, this may be changing as I am aware that some children are beginning to read books on tablets. As iPads and other tablets become more familiar features around the house, adults may also read to a child from e-book versions. This might be especially useful when travelling, for example. But I don't think we are at the stage yet where children's chapter books can prosper commercially solely as e-books. Beyond the issue of the availability of e-readers and tablets (even as the price for these devices become lower and lower) and the preference in many circles to feel the weight, size and texture of a children's book in print, parents may also not necessarily want to have children exposed to media devices at a young age. All these may not be a bad thing; I myself often prefer the touch of paper. But you do lose some of the efficiencies allowed by e-books. 

In the meantime, e-book format may simply provide an additional option for reading such children's chapter books rather than the principal one. I plan to do both print and e-book versions for Baby Dragon. My guess, though, is that given the cost of printing in color, the print edition again will be black and white (except for the cover). I only wish I could do the print book in color too.

From a commercial perspective, it may be that e-book models succeed more with books in certain genres (e.g., romance) - where readers might actually prefer e-books as much as (or perhaps more than) print. That is not the case with children's chapter books (not yet). But as I said, sometimes you don't choose the book; the book chooses you.

Have you had experience writing children's chapter books or children's novels? What are your experiences as a writer or reader with respect to children's books as e-books?

Nelson Suit is the author of a book of poems, The Songs of Galangal, and a children's book titled Els Oot and the Mapmaker, a story about a mouse named Els Oot who goes on an adventure with the grumpy Ice Perka in search of a lost mapmaker. Nelson is also working on a time travel adventure tentatively titled Cloud's Eye among other projects.  He is interested in how digital technologies are changing the way we read, write and learn and writes about e-books and digital publishing on this Wordcapering blog.

Dear Reader: Tweet Me, Maybe?

I recently made my foray into the Twitter universe (I created my Twitter account with the handle @wordcaper - yes, please "follow" me if you are on Twitter) and, while I tweet still a bit awkwardly, I have found it to be more or less a refreshing experience.

Due to social media, readers now have more options to
"call up" their favorite authors.  

As a writer and a reader, I keep thinking about what the character Holden Caulfield says in J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye, "What really knocks me out is a book that, when you're all done reading it, you wish the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it. That doesn't happen much, though." Well, if you did come across such a book, it might be now more possible than ever for you to "call" up the author - as so many of them are on Twitter or have a Facebook author page or maintain a profile on Goodreads (or are on Google+ or LinkedIn or Pinterest for that matter) the object of each of these platforms being not only to "present" the author but to foster interaction.

For those of you who are not yet on Twitter, the service (which can be accessed on the Web or on a smart phone) is simply an information network that allows you to send and receive short messages (each tweet being 140 characters or less) over the internet. While seemingly simple, the service has interesting implications to the way we read and write in the digital age. Here are some of my bookish observations on Twitter.

1. Bus Stop. What seems most refreshing about Twitter to me is a certain "bus-stop" culture where it seems generally okay for your to initiate a conversation with a stranger. It seems to be within Twitter etiquette to "follow" someone even if you do not know them, and many of them will "follow" you back.

It reminds me of the hours spent learning the basics of ham radio as a teenager and sending out messages via Morse code into the ether as an amateur radio operator (yes, geeky, I know and worse that I can still remember my call sign). You never knew who might answer your "CQ".

Communicating on Twitter, of course, is multiple levels beyond the amateur radio operator's CQ calls. You can describe yourself on your profile and add pictures, you can insert links to photos or other web pages and you can direct your comments to a particular person or to persons interested in a particular topic. But nevertheless, in contrast to Facebook and LinkedIn, for example, where a friend or connection request is generally not initiated if you do not have some prior contact, Twitter seems to allow for serendipitous connections.

What does this mean? A reader possibly can seek out an author she likes (or find a new author by chance by browsing the tweets that are sent out for the public to see) and connect with the author directly via a Twitter post or direct message.

2. Interest Communities. The less formal nature of "introductions" on Twitter also easily allows persons with similar interests to connect. If you are an indie author, you know you are not alone. The Twitterverse appears to be full of authors - both traditionally published authors and indie authors who have self-published or published through small presses, and most of them will happily connect with you. I hazard to guess that close to two-thirds of my 600 plus followers on Twitter are fellow authors or aspiring writers.

Authors can talk craft with other authors or share tips on book marketing. Authors, of course, are also readers and can be fans of your work (the lines between readers and writers blur in our digital age). In the least, a network of fellow writers who converse with you in short bursts of 140 characters or less (no long emails) - whether in public tweets or through private messages (which the service also allows) generally provides some levity to otherwise solitary hours spent typing in front of a computer screen.

3. Web 2.0. In our web 2.0 culture, writing and reading often take shape and evolve through multiple levels of interactions between authors and readers and between readers themselves. Readers may create fan fiction or fan art and an author may seek to provide feedback through linking to a particular piece of fan art or responding to a reader comment. Readers who like the same authors may also connect with one another.

These interactions take place on multiple forums. Twitter is one of them - where interactions may take the relatively mundane form of a quick jab at an author who kills off a favorite character or perhaps a more creative endeavor involving tweets from (and between) fictional characters. These interactions add additional dimensions to our lives as readers and writers and remind us that the writer (or reader) often is no more than a tweet away.

So, readers, tweet me, maybe?

Nelson Suit is the author of a book of poems, The Songs of Galangal, and a children's book titled Els Oot and the Mapmaker, a story about a mouse named Els Oot who goes on an adventure with the grumpy Ice Perka in search of a lost mapmaker. Nelson is also working on a time travel adventure tentatively titled Cloud's Eye.  He is interested in how digital technologies are changing the way we read, write and learn and writes about e-books and digital publishing on this Wordcapering blog.

Google's Grand Canyon Trail Views: Adding Textures to our Landscapes

Grand Canyon view from the trails taken from my own point-
and-shoot camera circa 1980. Google's Trail Views, of
course, put those old images to shame.

Last fall, hikers on several of the trails at the Grand Canyon National Park might have been surprised by backpackers carrying a blue-domed apparatus inset with cameras. Known as the Trekker, the device was being carried by a Google Maps Street View team to gather 360-degree views from within the trails of the Grand Canyon. Those images were finally made available on Thursday last week.

By the click of a button or a touch on a mobile phone screen, users of Google Maps can wander down many of the most popular trails of the Grand Canyon, including Bright Angel Trail and South Kaibab Trail. You can swivel the view left or right to see the canyon walls or the vistas off the side of the switchbacks. You can look up at the blue sky with the billowy white clouds or at the sand and rocks along the path, zooming in here on a patch of vegetation growing along the base of a wall or on a myriad of irregular jagged or layered rocks along the path.