A little over a week ago a user named Klazart (real name Vineet) joined authonomy and a few days later he uploaded his manuscript. He probably would have remained just one of thousands of other users on the site were it not for the fact that Klazart is also a leading commentator in the Starcraft online gaming community, with a huge YouTube following built up over years. He reached out to his audience for support and as word spread they came in droves, propelling his book ever higher up the charts, much to the chagrin of many existing authonomists. There was a culture clash, unpleasant words were exchanged and to top it all the site slowed and eventually failed altogether. (Rumours the site was being attacked by hackers were vastly exaggerated. The fault was ours. It was frustrating and more than a little embarrassing, but it was not caused by any malicious parties.)
As the dust settles and the site returns to operation, Klazart’s book has, at the time of writing, 1232 backers and hangs tantalisingly close to the top 5 spots destined for the Editor’s Desk in 6 days time. His supporters, by showcasing his book, have benefitted from its rise and usurped the talent-spotter rankings of nearly everyone. Lots of authonomy members have asked for Klazart and his supporters to be banned. We haven’t done that because there are some practical and, we feel, ethical issues here.
Like Klazart, hundreds of authonomy members have indulged in online promotion (and possibly offline too) in support of their books. No writer’s blog is complete without their authonomy plug. And quite rightly so, we’d agree.
When Klazart looked for online promotion he naturally went to YouTube and the medium of video, where he was accomplished and where he could reach his supporters.
The significant difference here is that Klazart was spectacularly successful at converting his request into action. Was this cheating, and if so, it begs the question, just how successful do you need to be to be labelled a cheat? Are the hundreds of blog promoters guilty? If you send one or two people over to authonomy is that okay? What about 10 or 20? 100?
Alexander had this to say on the subject:
"And hasn't anybody out there in the 'old crowd' ever brought a friend, family member, facebook group member or blog reader to this site? I know I did. Wanna take my gold star away, now?
Hands up, all of you with Facebook fan pages! And what have you done that is different to what Vineet did? Hands up anyone with a blog that invited blog readers to come to authonomy? My hand's up"
We think it is good for the growth of site and the diversity of the community that new people are encouraged to join. But even if we didn’t feel that way we simply cannot stop people promoting their book (or anyone else’s book for that matter) and we certainly can’t police it. Given this we feel we cannot penalise anyone for doing so, successfully or not. It would not be fair.
authonomy strives to reduce barriers and open up at least this small part of the publishing process. If Klazart’s followers or anyone’s followers want to join authonomy (and be bound by its terms and conditions) we are not going to stop them. What right have we to arbitrarily say who should be allowed in and who should be shut out? (What next - banning access to books?) And from a practical point of view, what information do we have to allow us to make such a decision anyway? (There is of course a deep irony that we, a publisher, whose industry is accused of being elitist, should be concerned with ensuring access for all, while many authonomists would like to exclude newcomers for being ‘the wrong sort’.)
Unlike many other similar sites that impose countless rules and restrictions on users’ interaction, we don’t place any real obligations on how members use authonomy (standard terms of use aside). Members may be there for the feedback, for the editor’s desk, for a read, just for a chat or something else entirely. We believe that is a virtue and has helped the site grow. And by good old-fashioned statistics, the larger the community, the larger the sample size and the more representative its outcomes should be.
So if someone wants to back any book and show their support for it we are not going to intervene. We can’t determine what motivates some people to back the books they do. The simple test ‘Would I buy this book?’ is an excellent one but there are others equally valid we’re sure.
It appears different people have different reasons for their behaviour and if the numerous reasons in any way mirror some of those that influence their reading in the real world (‘liked the author’, ‘friend recommended it’, ‘first paragraph reeled me in’ etc.) then authonomy may be more like real-life than even we imagined.
As an illustration of motivation some of Klazart’s fans have admitted they haven’t even read his book but are supporting him because of their appreciation for his abilities as a commentator on Starcraft games and their confidence that these skills translate well into successful writing.
Bluestocking raised this as a general issue:
"if there is a loose understanding among the members here (who own all the content) that you don't shelf a book you haven't read, that is a legitimate area for discussion."
tonpole had this to say:
"I believe in Klazart for many reasons. His oratorical skills are outstanding - Klazart speaks more quickly than I can think at times, but even at the most intense portions of a match, when he gets really excited and speaks in an even more dense stream, he's still perfectly understandable. His analysis of the games is deep and insightful, as are his thoughts on the players' mental and emotional states, which is always thought-provoking, whether or not any of it is accurate. He marries this with a constant stream of witty banter, often turning to serious topics or political issues. He pulls metaphors from surprisingly diverse areas in order to discuss players, games, or strategies… Some of these oratorical traits transfer well to the literary world (and why shouldn't they? Cicero and Demosthenes would balk if they were to hear the phrase "unrelated" applied yet again). This isn't why I backed Klazart's book, however. I backed it because I read it, enjoyed it, and saw potential."
What is clear to us is that Klazart's support is genuine and his book’s rank is an accurate reflection of this. Is the book of better quality than others lower down? We simply aren’t in a position to comment. Does the Times bestseller list or the judging panel of the grand literary awards always order titles to everyone's satisfaction? Does this discredit authonomy? We don’t think so. We want to see the whole panoply of publishing find a place on the site, from the high-brow to the populist, from the informative to the frivolous. By surfacing popular books and authors and bringing them to a wider audience, authonomy is becoming more relevant to the industry, not less.
Harlson Phillips wondered on authonomy's role in preparing authors for publication:
"If Authonomy is a testing-ground for would-be writers then surely it's equally valid to use it as such for testing other aspects of the professional writer's package than simply the text…there are dozens of other online critique sites, some general, some genre specific, where any of us can hone skills if that's what you want/need to do. But there are no sites I know of wherein you can properly practice promotion and marketing writing and writers in real time with a real audience. Here, on Authonomy, we have an opportunity to test a complete skillset before launching ourselves and our work into the 'real' world."
Admittedly any method of rating is going to be a compromise. We’ve always tried to keep things as simple as they possibly can be while still working – it is invariably the best solution. Over time we’ve had to make small changes to the algorithms, always with the goal of keeping things straightforward. However the recent events have shown that the talent-spotter ranking is just too simplistic a measure of reputation within the community.
Susanne echoed the frustration of many when she wrote:
"My TSR went down nearly five hundred point in one day. This has upset me. I might have joked about it before but in reality I was proud to boost books that I love and get them a little higher in the charts."
While the situation is not irretrievable – unless any authonomist can sustain their talent-spotting performance, their rank will drop back after 30 rolling days – we do think the mechanism can be improved. Klazart’s backers have built formidable personal rankings based only on one book’s rise and this cannot be seen to be representative of their talent-spotting ability in general. They are not to blame for this outcome. The process is broken and we’re going to fix it. You read it here.
Meanwhile, authonomy has welcomed thousands of new members who have come from sites all across the internet, places that would never have become aware of this endeavour before. We think that makes this place a little bit richer.
Newcomer KatJ270 exclaimed:
"Word of this has spread all over the internet.
This site has been yanked out of obscurity into the spot light.
The world is watching!"
Watching and, we hope, reading.
103 comments:
You don't mention the talent you've lost. I wonder if that equates to (probably fleeting) gain in members?
Thanks for this. As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly the correct response.
I just joined Authonomy over the weekend, having nothing to do with the Klazart incident, and was immediately greeted by hordes of authors fighting with each other. From my outside perspective, it looked exactly like you presented it here: someone had come in, brought a large following with him, and a lot of the established community freaked that suddenly they were drowned out by other voices.
That, to me, seemed like one of the primary goals of the site. A no-brainer. If anyone thinks this site isn't one big popularity contest they are just deluding themselves.
If an author appears and drags in ten thousand people willing to support his book, wouldn't it be almost irresponsible of HC if they didn't consider publishing it?
As for lost talent ... well, obviously I didn't know any of them. But if they left because someone else became more popular then them ... meh. I can't muster the righteous indignation that they obviously can. What remains when the dust settles will be stronger.
I’ve already said what I feel about this situation. I’ve not been a part of the fights or harsh words, and would even go as far as to say that I believe that Vineet did nothing wrong. I welcome him here and have already left what I think is a helpful comment on his book.
Moving on, I’m surprised to see that a publisher could feel comfortable saying that they are not in a position to say if one particular book further up the chart is better than others below it. I thought that that was EXACTLY your position to say.
The TSR situation is a real mess. People have worked hard for months to get where they were on the charts, only to be kicked out by someone else who will most likely not visit the site again. This is a big joke, especially when you click through all of the dark, shadowy figures with their excellent TSRs with only one book on their shelves. What I found most disturbing is that while randomly clicking on their individual black shapes, I found that some of the members here (two in particular) had spammed hundreds of new members – most of whom will never see their messages.
Lastly, I found it really disappointing that HC did not address the issue of the ‘Art (quality) of writing’ in this post. Yes, it’s good that we have thousands of new members – albeit for one day. It’s certainly fantastic that news of Authonomy has spread. However what about the quality of books making the ED? I’m not saying that Vineet’s book isn’t good. I’m not talking about his book anymore. He has a good story and is talented in the way he tells it.
What I’m saying is that HC is rejoicing in getting everyone to make more people join and back our books all the way to the desk. Most of those backers would not have read the books. Our books will get to the ED, then what? What is the site really for? I thought that you wanted great books up there, not necessarily books that have lots of backers. You’ve left me really disillusioned after reading this. I was fine with Vineet and his friends, many of them are extremely intelligent. I just thought you would have said nothing about it, or at least if you did, that you would’ve mentioned something about getting people to help us raise the quality of our books before we get them to back us all the way to your desk.
I’ve been here since last May, and I’ve always hung on. Even my TSR dropping more than 700 points didn’t get to me. Alas, finally you have, and not in a positive way either.
The loss of TSR is upsetting, though certainly not the end of the world. But I do have to wonder, what does this mean for all of those who stay on? My TSR was 100, now it's 1000-something. Not only is voting completely pointless, but how will anyone rise in rank after this?
Perhaps it is all relative, since nearly everyone seems affected, but still very disheartening. We are a fragile and emotional bunch. I do not blame any for their anger, or for leaving entirely. Neither can I point a finger at Klazart or his 'following'. But I would be lying if I said I was completely unaffected by what happened.
Regardless of any fantasy I might have entertained about reaching the Ed's desk (a seemingly pointless endeavor of itself) I now feel that being involved beyond the occasional friendly chat in the forum has lost all meaning, too.
Whatever else happens, it's the end of Authonomy as we know it. How do you feel?
Thank you for the clarification of your position. I understand that you were put in a very difficult position--and even, that there really isn't much else that could have been done.
The fact is though that Klazart's 'instructional video' on YouTube explicitly asks his followers to vote without reading ("take you five minutes.") I know that other "veteran" authonomists have attempted similar shenanigans on a smaller scale, and many of us didn't approve of those either. Before Klazart, though, there were enough straight arrows around, denouncing underhanded tactics, that the site was kind of loosely self-policing. Even though some books shot up the charts through message spamming and the like, some really wonderful books like The Portland Court Adventures were able to rise without any recourse to such stuff.
It's not really clear what will happen next, but those of us who were working here hoping that someday authonomy would be a great resource for new writers have been very bummed out by all this.
All the best, and thank you again for addressing the matter directly--
Maria Bustillos
I think the feeling of many of the existing members is this: I started at the bottom of the mountain at base camp. I climbed the mountain, every grueling step of the way and it was a great experience for my book, my character and all the friends I acquired along the way. I look at the summmit, now so close, and look, a helicopter has just dropped a newcomer onto the summit. He's standing there, pleased at his accomplishment and smiles down at me saying, hello, it's wonderful up here, glad you could make it.
Jeff Blackmer
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I sincerely apologise for any upset, hurt or difficulty caused by my actions, this was not my intended goal.
In hindsight things always look different so I'd rather not dwell on that.
The issue of rankings and whether a book on the chart is better or worse than books above or below it is very intriguing, and I think Authonomy's response is a balanced and thoughtful evaluation of current reality.
One of the universal rules in contests and competitions, not just for writers, is that there should be an exclusion of vested interest. That no one related to a contest judge should be allowed to participate. In the recent Amazon contest, contestants were expressly forbidden from leaving their name or any other identifiable information on their submissions.
The unique thing about authonomy is that the contestants are also the judges. How then, can we be sure that the judging is impartial? We would like to think it will be, most of the time, but that temptation even exists is worrying.
How do we know that positive feedback wasn't given to induce the same in return?
How do we know that a vote wasn't cast in the hope of reciprocation?
How do we know that negative criticism is genuine and not driven by personal agenda?
Where there is even the possibility of vested interest, our usual assumptions are threatened.
One of the flaws I feel is the ability to vote for an infinite number of manuscripts. The judges have so many votes that the votes themselves carry no value.
If you could only vote for your top 5 or 10 every month, then you would have to be very careful who you voted for.
But then how do you compete with someone bringing in legions of outside supporters?
You could combat this by weighting the TSR even more, but that produces a situation where a few hold far too much sway.
Overall, I feel that Harper Collins are doing their best to account for these intricacies and create a fair system. But no system is perfect, and Authonomy will need to continue to evolve to meet greater needs and challenges.
I think people who have been reading and commenting for months are right in feeling cheated. These are the people who keep the site alive and help other members improve their books. I think the TSR should reflect how much your read and comment, not one's luck at backing a rising book.
I'd like to second the idea of TSRs being more dependent on how active you are, as opposed to just picking out a popular book. Maybe locking in your TSR when your shelf isn't full (or close to full) would be a good idea as well (so if you've only backed one book, your TSR doesn't change). Just some ideas.
Cameron Chapman
Well, it all makes me feel good as I had only one friend (who had been encouraging me for years) 'back' my book - but she had read it, at least. And I made it past the top 100 in about a month. No blogs, no websites, just interfacing with the community.
I took my book down and my profile before all of this happened simply because it was taking up too much of my actual writing time. I love the site. It helped me. And I still visit the blogs.
Vineet was within his rights as written by HC. He probably didn't realize the ramifications (or maybe he did, I don't have a crystal ball).
The ONLY part I don't like is some of the snarky, immature, prankster-ish followers he brought along with him. But then again, authonomy already had some of those anyway.
Life isn't fair. Or else I'd be published already. :-)
Vineet, I'd like to address your remarks here, if I may. You've obviously been online for a lot of years, as I have, and presumably have participated in different kinds of online communities. These communities tend to create their own internal mechanisms for guarding against trolling, for example, for introducing new members so that they get the most out of their participation, and so on. Relationships develop, flourish and fade away as members come and go. The community develops a character.
It is this that you have damaged with your scheme, unfortunately. A lot of our most talented people have left over the last two days and a lot of vitriol has been spilled.
Those of us who have participated here for a few months have made lifelong friends, have held meetings, had drinks with one another. The shared interest for the vast majority of participants here was a love of good writing and a shared hope that the most talented of us will go on to successful careers as authors. We're friends; it's not some kind of cutthroat contest, not to most of us.
So please don't suggest that most of us weren't fully aware of shenanigans here, such as they were. Of course, we're talking about the difference between the unfair bicycle that some were furiously pedaling up the slope, and your own helicopter. But it's the same principle. Some of us are just going for a different "prize" here than you are, that's all.
I think what's worth noticing is that the Editor's desk has held up really well to this though - Klazart's book isn't on there most of the time...and it would require a **steady** and high stream of his supporters to put it up there and keep it up there to replicate what a lot of authonomists see as more legitimate/less 'black hat' methods of getting to the top.
The key thing to know about LASTING success at authonomy is that it's not a sprint; people can't retain top positions without sustained commitment and involvement. The site's built so that 'helicoptering' can't work over more than 30 days!
So, authonomists, if you're opposed to Klazart getting up there, the BEST thing you can do is keep using the site, because that's your joker card.
The WORST thing you can do is all go off in a huff and have the absence of activity leave the door wide open to gaming the system.
The other thing to note is that, even if your talent spotter ranking has taken a dive, the TSR's are calculated over a rolling 30 day period...so unless a new gaming entrant sticks around to participate longer term in the site, their success as a talent spotter will be very short lived.
feeling happier now?
Well, that's a relief, then. The people at HarperCollins are content and happy.
But explain to me why I should hang around on this site when all my efforts to contribute by reading and backing books is now meaningless because my tsr is so low and will remain so for a month? My support for books will have no effect on their position in the chart because it will take that long for my tsr to start to rise irrespective of how many books I back in the meantime.
Hitherto, despite the flaws in the site, there appeared to be some merit in participating in authonomy, an impression which was fostered by HarperCollins, especially with regard to publishing contracts. Now, HarperCollins have shown that they are only generating interest in authonomy.
To suggest that the influx of people over the weekend were in any way participants in authonomy is frankly risible. The majority will not return for the simple reason that they are interested in reading or in writing. They responded to a call.
The double standard whereby previous acts by previous members of the site led to the introduction of the tsr system to prevent 'cheating', yet allows one-day visitors to bump up one book without their reading it, visitors who were incited to invade and support that one book is clear. Of course. the difference between previous 'cheating' and the current event is numbers. The latter raised the profile of authonomy whereas previous 'cheating' did not.
So, well done HarperCollins. You succeeded in alienating many loyal supporters of authonomy in the interests of a raised profile.
Fun and Games? And there was me thinking the site was about writing. My mistake.
Klazart not only posted his video on You Tube but the most notoriouis hacking site in the world, owned by Anonymous - please look them up in Wikipedia for more info. Is this right sending users over that are notorius for savataging websites?
"Klazart not only posted his video on You Tube but the most notoriouis hacking site in the world, owned by Anonymous - please look them up in Wikipedia for more info. Is this right sending users over that are notorius for savataging websites?"
This is CATEGORICALLY untrue. I did not even know about the existence of "Anonymous" till it was mentioned on the Authonomy forums.
Please check your facts before making such accusations.
How could HC do anything about this legally? Vineet acting within the rules. How can they do anything but accept what has happened, learn from it and fix it so it can't happen again -- assuming they want to.
Fault DOES belong to HC if they didn't foresee the possibility of mass internet invasion and put in stop gaps and safety measures. Again, assuming they don't really like this any more than 'we' do.
And, agitating the 'beast' might only make it angry and want to feed.
I think what many people are upset about is they feel duped -- and who likes that feeling?
If HC could/would say they were taken by surprise as much as the rest of us, maybe some of the members would feel better. HC being naive vs. HC being manipulative are two entirely different things.
Maybe we need to read between the lines. Or am I being naive?
Frustrating as it might feel for people whove toiled away for decades, I think it's just too blinked/institutionalised to see anyone who reaches a higher point than you without treading the exact same path as you as 'cheating'. It shows how quickly we can become conservative and I think this storm in a teacup is a helpful wake up call to us all over the 30 days it will take to flush out the insubstantial TSPs.
The 'mountain' we're all climbing, the summits we're aiming for, is
(1) suffient support/market
(2)achievement of proper quality of content/book proposition
in order to support a successful publishing venture.
Although authonomy is a good route up the 'mountain' it is not the mountain.
Surely we all agree authonomy, and any support gained from purely *within* its walls, is NOT the ultimate and freestanding measure of your book's credentials as a publishing candidate? We must allow, as a right thinking community, that a new entrant could conceivably be recognised very quickly on the site as very attractive publishing proposition, without calling it cheating?
Can't you see? A new entrant who's climbed this mountain sufficiently to have 1000+ supporters/strangers not related to him by anything but admiration for his wordcraft and his ideas is looking like he might have those credentials. In buckets!
I know you've put loads of work within the walls of authonomy - so have I - but it's not the ONLY arbiter of publishing merit.
I mean, how many layers would you rip off a professional editor who criticised your literary merit purely based on the methods you've deployed to Get Noticed?
A guy who's built loads of supporters from scratch has done loads of work too.
He's not come in by belicopter, he's just climbed the north face whilst you're climbing the south face.
Anthony JS:
"explain to me why I should hang around on this site when all my efforts to contribute by reading and backing books is now meaningless because my tsr is so low and will remain so for a month?"
why it is 'meaningless'? every time a book that you've backed gets backed by a new person you get a point - that's no different/powerful from this time last week.
Meanwhile, a so called talent-spotter who just comes in and backs one book then leaves is getting smaller and smaller income from this book as the number of new backers diminishes (and there's very few new backers coming in now). It won't take 'a month' as TSR seem to be calculated on a rolling basis - you should see effect in days!
Meanwhile, each time you back a book, you can feel pretty sure that will boost the relative ranking of someone's book just as before....PRECISELY BECAUSE the inactive gaming backers are not going out backing any more books. Each time you act, you acrew points, which makes you a more powerful talent spotter than an inactive one.
"Hitherto, despite the flaws in the site, there appeared to be some merit in participating in authonomy, an impression which was fostered by HarperCollins, especially with regard to publishing contracts. Now, HarperCollins have shown that they are only generating interest in authonomy."
that's illogical - it doesn't follow at all. The way I read it, HC have shown they permit people to bring in outside voters, because they think this can be a good indicator of intrinsive quality of ability to hold a fanclub as well as wordsmithery. If anything it suggests to me they're taking us seriously as publishing propositions.
"To suggest that the influx of people over the weekend were in any way participants in authonomy is frankly risible. The majority will not return for the simple reason that they are interested in reading or in writing. They responded to a call."
well in that case you have NOTHING to worry about. if they don't come back, they can't acrew points, and their talent spotter ranking will diminish by the hour relative to yours.
"visitors who were incited to invade"
careful here. invade is often used an emotive and protectionist word for something that's just, well, 'new', don't you think?
I left Authonomy during the "crisis," but not because of Klazart, or even because of the behavior of some people on the forums. I left because I don't believe HC has any intention of publishing any book currently on the site. Apparently there were 3 new authors in January. Well, with the economy as it is, it would be idealistic (and delusional?) to expect more. I didn't come to Authonomy to chat and make friends. I believed (based on what was written) that HC was looking for talent - i.e. new writers to publish. But it sounds like many on the site have now discovered that HC's real intention is to create a POD service with these writers. Fine. All's fair, but I'm not interested. CreateSpace and many others already do that.
Firstly, the evidence shows that being backed in one day by several people with very low rankings has no effect on the position of a book.
Secondly, according to HarperCollins, it will take about a month.
Thirdly, generating interest was the publicly stated intention of HarperCollins and their current stance demonstrates this.
Fourthly, invade is precisely what these people did.
We don't have to wait 30 days for things to reset. When (and I have no doubt the Klazart Juggernaut will succeed) Lesser Sins makes the desk by the end of the month, the gold star appears. The gold star is somewhat of an equalizer. It pulls the book out of the running and there is no longer any TSR benefit to back it. People who are here just to back this book will see their TSRs plummet on a book with a star but no rank #.
Jeff Blackmer
Some fellow Authonomy members and Klazart's most ardent defenders have described what he did as "marketing." I don't buy that as a valid description as much as I believe he found a gaping loophole in HC's system and took advantage of it. Others may have done the same; I for one wouldn't have, partly because I am not involved in YouTube, Facebook, Twitter or any of that other social networking hooey (with thousands of "friends"). IMHO, it is disingenuous and a tactic in which the perpetrator could, conceivably, be the ultimate loser.
All I know is, I -- like the VAST MAJORITY of members -- plopped my little ms on here in December, updated it a few times and, without trumpeting its glories via spam or "read my awesome book!" infomercial threads, slowly but steadily inched into the top 200. Now comes along a young man who bypasses all the hard work and commitment to his craft that others have engaged in and took an easy path to what is NOT a preordained result. Doing so, he also eschewed valuable feedback and critiques that may have helped polish his writing, perhaps a sign either of ego or self-doubt, not sure which.
I do not hate Klazart; I have no dislike for him at all and in fact I wish him well in his pursuit of a career in literature. However, I do hate what I did. Still, it's not enough for me to leave Authonomy, at least for the foreseeable future. I still value the critiques and camaraderie here, even from some of the more thoughtful and PARTICIPATORY newcomers.
Tom Bradley Jr.
vivalasbradleys
To Harper Collins.
I became disillusioned with the Editors Desk last November, pulled my books, then came back in January and put one back up - but - with no interest in getting to the desk and no interest in the TS ranking personally.
I decided to use the site to improve my novel and I've had some fantastic feedback from others that I'd not have had if you had not created this site. For that, I thank you.
Others however do, or did, believe in the Ed's desk and the TS rankings and by your response supporting Vineet and his methods you appear to be disregarding the feelings of many members who have helped build this site.
You could have at least included in your blog, a few more posts from people who are upset about this, and by that, I mean rational, non abusive posts. There are many to choose from.
Yes I understand the marketing aspect of all of this, and that you're all so happy that you have so much more exposure now.
But - this has come at the expense to the community of losing many exceptional members of the site, who feel very let down by you.
There have been many more posts by people suggesting ways to improve the way book ranks/ts ranks are achieved. Vineet is one of them, although that does seem ironic, but I have to say he makes some good points. So do many others.
Please take a look.
While I understand many of the new members may prove to be good contributors, I can also see many of the 'one book backers' will leave. Then, what was really achieved? I can also see that a lot of new members are likely to be genuine, and I would welcome those people. What's the point though, in welcoming people who are only there to back one book and leave?
I feel personally, that HC does not care about those people who have been upset by the events of the last weekend, and for that, I think, is a great shame.
Lorrii
I would like to address the apparent belief of some posters and, apparently Site Admin, that this influx of "new blood" and Vineet's "amazing" marketing skills are somehow going to revitalize and further legitimize the site.
I don't think that's true. I think the opposite may well occur.
Yes, "people are watching." They have been since the beginning. Since that beginning a large number of those people, from the "rank and file" reader to high-end critics, editors and agents, have pointed out the basic flaws in the AUTHONOMY system, calling it nothing more than a dodge to keep editorial desks clear of chaff or an AMERICAN IDOL-style popularity contest.
Several pointed to an event such as the Vineet situation being inevitable saying, should such a thing occur, it would be final proof that the site was too fundamentally flawed to be anything more than a curiosity. Certainly not somewhere anyone could go if they had notions of finding any diamonds in the rough.
This was not the case as I and many others said in defense of the site. "We take this more seriously than you can imagine," we told the detractors. "We aren't going to let this thing get hollowed out that way."
And we didn't. Granted some of that was selfish, at least in my case. There's no fun in a win that doesn't come from legitimately out-writing another writer or stack thereof. That's what surviving the slush actually means: thousands come; tens are chosen. Sometimes, only one.
On AUTHONOMY that meant biting the bullet and giving votes to people who were good writers, even if such voting impeded my own "progress." That's how the majority of us played and most of us didn't need to be told or handheld about it. We knew the rules and we knew the spirit behind them, we thought. In fact, we didn't think of it as a game.
We are, as I've said many times, like gladiators in that respect. We fight for the pleasure of our "caesars" each of us hoping for a thumbs up and most of us getting the sword each time. Then, after each fight, we return to the practice pens, helping each other to make new weapons and hone our techniques before returning to the arena for another bloody go.
Our competition is certainly brutal at times but it's also almost never personal. It's just the nature of that particular beast.
But, it's nearly all skill-dependent, all about what, as a writer, you can actually do.
What happened this weekend wasn't about writing. Not even close. And, despite some attempts to dress it up, it wasn't even about skillful marketing.
REAL advertising is that which gets a potential customer, via various means of teasing, to come out and take a look at a product they've not meant to look at before. Advertising doesn't compel a buy. It simply says, "Try this. We think you'll like it," leaving the actual decision to buy up to the customer.
Vineet didn't do that. He wrote out a little how-to manual for how to work the system, posted it on YOUTUBE and told his fans (quite legitimate in that other venue) to come to AUTHONOMY and back his book. Not, "come and read." Not, "come and take a look." Simply, "come and back me."
He didn't care if they actually read it or any of the other books on the site. That's not advertising. That's a smash and grab. That's a drive-by.
It was, at absolute best, a vote for how much they love their friend. Good for them. Who doesn't love love? But AUTHONOMY is not a dating service as far as I know.
Nor is it a Scout jamboree. Nor is it a bridge club or an opera appreciation society. Not long ago Vineet himself asked "Is AUTHONOMY just a circle jerk?"
Setting aside the crude nature of the question, I had presumed he meant to be critical. Imagine my shock when it turned out what he truly wanted was to supply both the circle and the jerking himself.
In fact, it's none of the above. It's a slush pile, right? Says so on every page. "Can you beat the slush?"
Not, "Can you avoid or sidestep the slush?"
Can you beat it? On some level, Vineet must have known he couldn't. It's why anyone cheats. They know they can't win otherwise.
So, on the two primary counts, actual writing being foremost and "playing by the rules" being a close second, Vineet scores low. Very, very low.
Yes, what happened was "fair." The rules do not specifically preclude the actions of the last weekend though I believe the definition of "friend" has been stretched a bit past breaking here.
The letter of the law was adhered to but, as others have pointed out, this turmoil has exposed what I believe to be a fatal flaw in the way the site works.
Previous to this weekend is was absolutely not a popularity contest. In the months previous to this, the vast majority of the books with high ranks and 100% of those that made it to the editor's desk were of high quality in terms of the author's ability to master prose, construct a complex narrative and, in short, to deliver a "real" book-reading experience.
The site was, for most of them, far too young for any of the sort of ballot box stuffing that took place this weekend to have been brought to bear or to have been effective if it was so, empirically, only actual merit could be the true determining factor.
No matter how much hawking those authors did in the flurry before the end of each monthly countdown, no one was seriously backing their books out of "friendship."
What good would my eventual win be, is the thinking, if people can say it was just my pals propping me up? No good. No good at all. Worthless.
Most of us know that such sight-unseen backing of novels erodes any potential credibility AUTHONOMY might have.
Vineet's antics have pretty much destroyed that credibility in a single stroke.
Yes, he has a legitimate following in his section of the gamer "community." Yes, he played by the rules.
But the rules allowed hundreds of people who DID NOT READ HIS BOOK, either on AUTHONOMY or elsewhere, to flood in and propel it to the front of the line by artificial means. I have a hard time applauding that.
On a site supposedly designed to bring new talent to the fore, promoting and rewarding an "author" whose "fans" don't read his work seems an odd way to go.
It isn't good marketing either. Pretty much anyone can stuff their own name into an unsecure contest entry box enough times to win the set of dime store cleavers if the rules don't expressly forbid the action. Yet all the "losers" of such a "contest," those who understood both the letter and the spirit of the rules and only submitted one name each, would, quite rightly, consider the "winner" a cheat.
That is what happened on AUTHONOMY. No more. No less.
The folks behind this site clearly disagree. Any pub, apparently, is good pub.
It's a theory.
But here are some additional figures to add into that computation:
For the past several months, extremely well-written novels have gotten to the Editor's Desk by playing fair and, most importantly, simply being, you guessed it, well-written. None of them, as far as I know, got contracts (never a guarantee, so that's not an issue)and nearly all of them were criticized severely for the "flaws" that popped up in their MSs. Some almost savagely. That too is quite fair and, to any who whined, even a little bit, the community response was, "Suck it up. Fix if you agree. Ignore if you don't. Take the book elsewhere and sell it." That's the writer response. We are gladiators.
Setting aside all the flurry that's occurred over his gaming of this system, Vineet's book is simply not good. It's not gut-wrenchingly terrible but it is nowhere near the caliber of the ones that have thus far reached the editor's desk.
Its flaws are the sort that might, theoretically, be hammered out by a massive and fairly brutal edit and at least one more ground-up draft (provided he's capable of implementing such a reworking) but that isn't the point.
The point is books that did not need such help were pounded pretty severely by AUTHONOMY editorial. No promises were made to anyone on the site and no book is guaranteed a nod much less publication but those critiques set the standard. You have said to your constituents that you set an extremely high bar for what books you will take on and which you won't.
So now Vineet's in pole position. If, as seems likely, his novel gets a critique, what will it say? Past experience indicates it must hit the ground dead, riddled with editorial bullets.
I'm not sanguine that that will occur.
If Authonomy does offer him a contract, which is certainly not unlikely if we believe his fans will actually spend money on his work regardless of its quality, then there is no reason whatsoever for any serious writer to participate farther with this experiment.
Such an offer would send the clear message that, to you, actually writing well is far less important than is having a hundred thousand Facebook buddies.
I believe that message has already been partially sent and, I'm very unhappy to say, pretty disappointed. I'm a bit long in the tooth to get pulled up short by my own naivete and, let me tell you, it stings.
You had something potentially special here and it looks like you're in the process of smothering it.
Writing fiction is hard work. It takes years, often decades, for someone to get proficient enough at it to legitimately ask people to pay them for the service. The vast majority of the writers on this site accept and embrace that fact. They are willing, indeed intensely eager, to walk the long walk. They are gladiators, hard fighters.
Vineet's actions and those of his "friends," as well as AUTHONOMY's tacit endorsement of those actions is a spit in the face of those who came here to, yes, promote their work, but also to actually do the work. That includes actually reading books and it certainly includes writing and rewriting them too.
The spotlight is still on him right now but, in a few days it will be on AUTHONOMY's editors. This is a referendum on the true motivations and goals of this site. Is it a slush pile? Is it a place for a talented unknown to show her stuff and rise? Or is it simply a place were a guy with a weak product, a posse and a game plan can "win?"
Yes. "People are watching." In a few days they will be watching you.
Morituri te salutant, folks.
And good luck.
(apologies for any remaining typos)
Publishing is about many things, probably the most important of which is marketing.
Vineet has a fan base and a ready made market and has the capacity to use that to benefit his work.
The fact that he has this base is going to be part of the decision any publisher makes when considering his work; the important question is 'Will it sell?' , not 'Is it a good book?'
Vineet's fan base makes a financially successful publication more likely.
It also means that people who are not publishing professionals or time servers on the site have a major influence because of the TSR issue.
So welcome to the real world- I take it we have all heard of Richard and Judy?
For me, the benefit of this site is improving my writing by working with my peers. For Vineet it is about marketing. We both get what we want.
And I'm sure all the kids playing video games will rush right out to buy his book.
"And I'm sure all the kids playing video games will rush right out to buy his book."
That is exactly the type of ridiculous stereotyping that I have seen over and over again amongst the Authonomy community. Do you know what Starcraft is? Do you know when it came out? Seriously, you claim to be educated writers it would be nice if you acted like it.
I think that the arrival of the Klazartians is good fun and illustrates what I've been saying about this site from day one, namely that it IS a popularity contest. YES, every now and then a wonderful "writer" who also happens to be a great "huckster" may manage to get his/her book to the top and get reviewed. But, apparantly, that hasn't happened yet. Why am I here, you ask? Well, with the advent of the computer, everyone on the planet who has been told that they 'have a book in them," is writing it now, and submitting them. Publishing houses have filled the moats with alligators and pulled up the rope ladder. They will lower it only for the next perceived "big thing," which often looks like the last big thing. And proven midlist writers like myself find it almost impossible to get a read. Putting my book, White Seed, on authonomy is like putting a message in a bottle. There is a chance, a slim one, but a chance that someone who knows books will take a look. So I hang in there.
Now, Klazartians, I hope you have come in peace. Check out all the nice earth women we have around here. Have a drink at the bar...
I would like to support Geoff in many of the points he makes, and if anyone would like to call me names for it, go ahead. I've said what I believe on the forums and I'll say it here.
Geoff's post is too long for me to point out piece by piece what I support, but in general I'd say almost all of it.
What I would like to add, is that I am not going to read Vineet's book because I don't agree with the methods he chose. That's my choice. If however HC offer him a contract, I will go read the first couple of chapters. If they are not at a standard above what has been rejected from the Ed's Desk so far, then I too will leave the site.
Because that, would be the final slap in the face to all those who do care about the Ed's desk, and those who helped build this site.
HC won't care about me leaving, the way they've shown not to care about others leaving.
That's the way of the HC world.
Lorrii
My parting thoughts:
HC set up this marvelous website for a stated purpose, and a lot of very talented amateur and professional writers flocked here and put up their works, whether they believed they had a chance of publication or not.
It became apparent fairly soon that the rules (or more accurately, LACK of rules) were exposing some major flaws in the premise of the site. Good books were reaching the desk, but not based solely on their merit. With the voting system as it was, "marketing" became a significant aspect of a book's success.
The defenders of the system pointed out (as HC has above) that marketing is part of the publishing process - that a prospective author's marketing prowess was an important element in his/her attractiveness to a publisher.
But is it? Does an unpublished author's marketing prowess really play a significant role in an editor's determination that a book is a good commercial risk? I suspect very rarely. Does marketing prowess add bonus points to an author's chances when his MS is already solid? Sure.
So, the writers on the site discussed, debated, argued for various alternatives that would improve the quality of the products we were working on. And in many cases, they BEGGED HC to get more engaged with the membership.
They got no reply (other than from Jesus-Rik - a BRICK of a guy!). But still, they shouldered on, and by and large, this community ordered itself through their own democracy.
That democracy was overrun last weekend. Strictly legal, but that is the problem. It was strictly legal.
Now, HC trumpets the benefit of all these new members that broaden the exposure and appeal of the website. I don't wish to be misunderstood here - but at the risk of sounding a little hyperbolic, I don't think the attractiveness of the site is improved by a hoard of members (with a few exceptions) who (a) haven't read any other books besides the one they came to vote for - and how much of that they read, who knows, (b) haven't left any meaningful, substantive comments on any other books, and in some cases (c) admit that they read very little fiction at all. Heck, one new member uploaded his PhD thesis in some sort of applied science.
Klazart seems like a fine man, he's stuck around, participated in the forums (how could he not, he's been the subject of most of them), and done probably more than he had to to make amends for his unintentional impact. Good for him.
But what the participants of the site have spent many months building has really been demolished substantially. For the sake of all the remaining and new members, I hope that HC realizes the importance of engaging with this community, listening to it, and responding to it. And I wish all the members the same enjoyment, good will and success as I had during my stay.
[I did not leave because of this event. It merely pushed me to do what I had intended to do anyway - but I was having a hard time doing it, because these people are my friends.]
I've been here from the start. I enjoyed reading and commenting, backing and meeting other writers. It had been a good place because of its people.
What happened is only showcasing what authonomy is made for. There is nothing wrong with that. Wrong are the people who think that Authonomy alone will get them published - in fact many publishers I spoke to regard a full upload as publishing. What is your gain by TSR? A contract? What is your gain by ED? A contract?
Think about that for a minute, please.
The pro critique will not get you published either.
I feel authonomy should be honest about its intentions. Its about pushing people toward self-publishing, just like Youwriteon. Both sites lost their innocence.
And...nothing wrong with that either.
I have no problem with self-promotion. Hats off to Veneet for his marketing. I do not even object to a bunch of non-writers storming the site. However, I have a serious problem with the attitude of HC, as well as that of Veneet.
First, Veneet is a gamer. He came at this looking to bunk the system. I fear that his ultimate goal is to "win the game" not have his ms published. If it were to be published, he might have done a better job of polishing before he posted. In my unqualified opinion, it isn't ready. A proof reader could have helped 50% of teh problem. I think Veneet is after and ed's desk spot, whereas others save princesses and seek treasures.
Were his actions wrong? Well, there is a difference between what is wrong and what we shouldn't do.
My problem with HC is that one word could have prevented this whole mess. The word? READ. Had they said in the FAQs that members were encouraged to invite friends and family to READ and back their book, we wouldn't be discussing this. Veneet filmed a how-to manual on how to back the book, not read it. Was it wrong? No. But again, it wasn't right either.
As for his followers. HOLY SHIT. I would not believe that fascism would ever rise again, but these are die hard fans that don't care what his book says. They'd jump off a cliff if he asked them to. Is anyone else scared when they contemplate this. Not saying Veneet is the next Franco, just saying that to find unquestioned loyalty on even this level, disturbs me.
Let him have his spot. He'll move on and we'll still be here. Makes no difference. I just think that first, we shouldn't say it's ok without acknowledging it wasn't exactly right, and second, I am blown away by the level of blind idealism in today's youth.
I'm off to read The Prince.
Phew! What a read I've accomplished - HC's blog plus comments! I joined Authonomy last May and continue to appreciate its underlying ethos of providing a place to give and receive constructive comment. I remember our early apprehension as numbers rose above a few hundred and then, before the site came out of beta, we worried again because the hordes would come - the site would be ruined. Now there's a another moment of "crisis". Maybe, HC will make good use of it to consider carefully and make improvements. For myself, I shall continue trying to improve and market my book, and to read others' work, leaving constructive comments. I believe, for me, that's the best way to be an authonomist.
I'm sorry Trash, but you've got some serious problems if you can equate spending 15 minutes registering and voting for a particular individual to fascism. I highly doubt any of Klazart's fans (of which I am not) would "jump of a cliff" for him. You're blowing this completely out of proportion. I mean, come on...
In any case, I found this all to be very amusing. Great way to spend a Sunday night. Would read again. I've always been interested in the way people react to different situations. Who would have thought that so many "intellectuals" would behave in such a childlike manner? Truly an eye opening affair. :)
I've also picked up a subject for my sociology assignment so I really can't thank you enough! In fact, I need to get back to that right now. Good luck on your novels! Chow!
It's spelled "ciao."
Is it Sunday?
Just curious... How would a publisher market a book to people who live in their mother's basement?
Just want to be clear. If HarperCollins is comfortable with the methods of Vineet and that they do not violate the spirit of the site -- are you also okay with such a strategy being used again? And again? Because you seem to open up the door to that. Thanks.
You market a book to people living in their mothers basement the same way you do to any group of people you do not know.
You redicule them and their hobbies, slander them and act vastly superior to them in every way.
Oh, my...a victim complex.
Perhaps you could market the book by pairing it with "Ten sure-fire ways to kiss a girl before you're thirty."
Trashy Cowgirl
My goal is very much to get published. And before I came to Authonomy, my HONEST belief was that getting to the ED and getting professional feedback from them would go a long way towards reaching that goal.
The reason I say this is, when you get feedback and it says one thing, and someone else says something different, how do you know who is right. I felt I needed a professional's opinion to help me sort some of this out.
Now that being said, AFTER joining and the whole hullabaloo I've gotten some really helpful (and some not so helpful) feedback, for which I'm eternally grateful. I'm already working on incorporating it, where appropriate, and taking it on board. I DO want my book to be the best it can be.
It's not that I haven't worked, don't want to work on my book, but I spend SOOOOO much time thinking about it that the words have almost started to blur together, I needed a little help separating them out again, and I saw the ED as being the lens that would bring them back into focus.
Now I could be entirely wrong, but I felt it was worth a shot, so I went for it. Regardless of what happens @ Authonomy, my goal remains, to get this book published, and I will work as long and as hard as it takes to make that happen.
P.S. While Authonomy is great, it's also such a time suck. You can really get lost in here. I haven't done any real work in the last week!
You may get it published, but the writing community will never support it.
You've become a pariah to those who try to get published in a classy and ethical manner.
The Authonomy Experiment
Why do I call this an experiment? Because HC is trying something new and unproven to, as they have said, flush out new talent. The bigger question, though, is has this experiment worked?
I can only offer the perspective of one writer who actively participated on the site for six months; from the day the beta version was opened to the general populace last September until just a few months ago. Just this weekend I deleted my account, so my comments and opinions will have no bearing on my standing within that online community.
It started out as a grand idea. "Beat the slush!" the site proclaimed. Get your chance to have an editor at a large publisher to read—and even better yet—acquire your book without having to deal with agents or the traditional route of querying. In all manners, it sounded like a great idea.
And for many purposes, it is a good idea, but not really in the way HC intended it. At the end of my sojourn there, I can positively say it helped me tremendously by connecting me with other writers who taught me more about the craft of writing than I had learned in the four previous years it took me to write my book. I learned to hone my craft through the critiques people offered on my writing, and through critiquing others' work.
Has anyone been picked up for publication by HC because of Authonomy? Yes. One person whose book I completely support. (HC claims two others came from the HC slush, but those two authors had agents who made the deals. Their participation on Authonomy was nearly nonexistent.)
Did any of those books come from the Editor's Desk? No. Only one book has even had a request for the full manuscript, and that was summarily rejected just like the rest.
So have HC's purposes in the site been met? That depends on what their intents really are. They said in the beginning it was to find new talent. If that is true, they have one success story from among the thousands of books that have been posted there, many of which I have read and, though many are still rough, have a lot of potential in them.
If HC's purposes are actually for publicity and monetizing of the slush, as has been argued by several Authonomites (with supporting evidence of ads now gracing the site and a self-publishing POD plan in the works), then I suppose they are achieving their goals. The only problem with that is that they are manipulating the authors who have, in trust, placed their work before the masses—and the editors at Harper Collins—without there having been a true intention of following through with their stated purpose.
What drove me from the site, though, was the sniping, arguing, and backstabbing that ran rampant in the effort to attain the hallowed Editor's Desk. I got tired of being called names and vilified by others for my sincerity.
Whenever you introduce competition, you bring out the best in some and the worst in others. This last weekend, I heard from friends I've met on Authonomy and continue to associate with, about the whole flash-mob debacle.
What is the value of all that support if it doesn't come with the blessing of the Authonomy community? Not much, if you are truly looking to improve your work by critiquing and receiving critiques on your work. But if his only intent is to put it before the editors at HC, he can be rejected as swiftly as the others before him.
Many claim that such antics break the system of Authonomy. But I wonder if HC doesn't revel in the publicity this garners for them. A captive audience of nearly 1,000 gamers at one time is what publishers' dreams are made of.
So it all rests with HC's true motives behind this venture. Yes, they have been lauded by the publishing and social networking communities for their enterprising venture. But the big question is whether the site has succeeded as a tool for finding writing talent. That would, sadly, be no. It is a great social gathering place, a writers' forum, and even a fun waste of time, but it is not, nor I doubt it will ever be, a successful way to acquire new books from talented writers.
Why? Because it is too focused on the competitive, on the social climbing and mutual back scratching that one finds whenever a game is being played without rules. People will make up their own rules, and then will be declaimed by others as cheating.
So to all the other publishers who might be considering such a venture, don't do it. One Authonomy is more than enough to show that it won't work to find new talent. And if you do want to set up your own marketing of self-publishing scheme, come clean and tell people the true intent from the beginning. It will save a lot of wasted time and effort for the writers involved.
The traditional route of finding an agent may be tough, and some talent may slip through the cracks, but it's better than the Dancing with the Survivor that is Authonomy.
(Adapted from a post I made on my blog http://belletrinsic.blogspot.com a few days ago.)
It's spelled "ciao."
Hey, I'm Chinese, I like my Chow Mein! Besides, English isn't my first language, so I'm doing pretty well if I do say so myself.
Oh, and if you do write "Ten sure-fire ways to kiss a girl before you're thirty", I would be eternally grateful. Insta-purchase. I'll tell all my loser gamer friends too! We'll come out in droves! We'll make you a millionaire over-night! Think about it!
Vineet or Klazart or whatever your name really is:
At some point in your life you reach a point where you have to decide what kind of person you're going to be.
Are you going to be someone who plays by the rules, who does the right thing, who considers the effect of your own actions on others?
Or will you simply bulldoze your way through life without any regard for others, not caring if your selfish decisions have affected others in a negative or hurtful way?
I've made some nice friends on Authonomy, and learned a lot from the feedback. I know that in some cases, should one of them hit it big, that person might actually put in a good word for me with a publisher. I know that I would do the same for some of them.
I would never, ever do it for you, even if you were a fantastic writer.
In your case you've made many enemies, and by not caring about the mess you've left in your wake, have killed any chance you had of getting a helping hand in the future from another writer.
Perhaps you are too young, too bulletproof to consider life as anything more than a game, but it is not.
If you have any semblance of decency left, if you take a long hard look in a mirror, you'll delete your novel from Authonomy. Take the lesson learned and make the decision to always do the right thing in the future.
You may make a million dollars in this life, but all the money in the world cannot buy respect.
I hate what Klazart did to Authonomy. I don't think he realized how many people it hurt. I can't comment one way or the other on whether he would have cared. Oh well. Water under the bridge.
Where do we go from here? First, what can we do personally? Well I'm looking very carefully at the people who would have been in the top 5 if this hadn't happened and backing any of them I can in good conscience back. My backing is still worth several times what a newcomer's is worth. If enough Authonomy veterans do that, problem solved. He doesn't make the top 5 this month, and maybe not next month either.
I am reaching out to the people who came to Authonomy with Klazart. There are some hot heads among them, but there also appear to be quite a few avid readers of science fiction (my genre), fantasy, and other genres. They should be made to feel welcome and encouraged to read and comment.
This is not and should not be a private website. It doesn't belong to one group of people because they've been there two months or six months or from when the site opened. It belongs to Harper/Collins and they make it available to anyone who wants to join.
This should also not be viewed as "us" versus "them"--"gamers" versus "writers". Each person in both categories is an individual. I'll treat them as a potential friend until they do something that proves they aren't. The newcomers who are looking for flame war will eventually go away if they don't find one. I'm guessing that no more than 50 or 60 will actually stay past the end of the month, but they should be treated like any other newcomer.
What should Harper/Collins do? Well the TSR needs to be fixed, and they say they're going to do it. I assume they'll do that. The TSRs as they were actually kept this from being much easier for Klazart. Because no one of his backers had much of a TSR when they came in, it has taken him 1250+ backings to pass someone with a little over 130, and that's in spite of the fact that a few high-ranking veterans jumped on the bandwagon to preserve and improve their TSRs.
Final note: It is within the power of Authonomy veterans to keep Klazart's strategy from working. If we don't want the site to become a place where people demonstrate how many Internet friends they can bring in, we need to back as many of the top five as we in good conscience can.
I didn't remove my books because of the influx of new members over the weekend of March 14th and 15th - it was because of the revolting aggressive protectionism that greeted you.
It left a nasty taste in my mouth and it hasn't gone yet. Once people are more welcoming and tolerant here - I may replace my books.
I am not holding my breath.
If people are so violently territorial over non tangible self referring 'reward' structures - it is no wonder that the world is full of wars and atrocities.
In my opinion there is no competition in existence worth deliberately hurting another human being over and I include hurting feelings by insult, sarcastic remarks and accusations of 'cheating' in that.
But desperate lack of self esteem is a factor in so many lives these days. Maybe it is because so few people get the emotional love and support they need in their private lives and they substitute 'forum love' and 'approval' for that and pretend it is important.
It is nice when such people are nice, but it is so obvious that the moment the person they are being nice to stops being of use - the niceness disappears.
What real value is there in such fickle friendship?
A real friend is someone who will babysit for you in an emergency, offer you a bed in their home if you need it.
Not someone who backs your book only on the proviso you back theirs in reciprocation.
Not someone who just says nice things about you as long as you say nice things about them.
Not someone who says different things to different people just to stay popular.
Not someone who is only your friend as long as you agree with them about everything.
I just wonder at lack of self awareness of people who have families and/or work and/or books to write who spend hours online collecting fake rewards from people they have never met, in order to rise in a ranking that means absolutely nothing.
Then they say they can't understand gamers!!!! But they don't seem to be able to understand that there are people who can amass a loyal fanbase - they call this a 'cult' and other derogatory names.
I assume they would have the same scorn for any fanbase they might amass as successful authors if such a thing might happen then?
But no, because they would be useful to them and so that would be different. Except they wouldn't be any different at all.
I have been a member on this site for a long time. I remember when quite a few of the so-called 'veterans' first registered. I have spent hours reading and trying to help other writers by critting or more often direct messages and I have been helped in the same way.
I am astonished at the people who now count their time on authonomy as 'wasted' because they now have different numbers next to their books and names.
Is that really the only reason you read and critted?
Not for the joy of reading?
Not for the pleasure of knowing you were helping?
Not for the excitement of hearing from another human being who had read your work and had comments to make?
Not because you wanted to improve your work?
Now you stop - because it is NO USE to you anymore?
This says so much about why this site has fallen apart at the seams.
This has turned into online vanity publishing but with added mutual back scratching and when things go awry, back stabbing.
I will probably regret writing this. Because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
But so many others here only care about their own feelings and cold bloodedly use other members to further their ambitions.
I suspect the reason they are so angry about Kazlart is because he isn't needy. He has written something, he is genuinely successful at a young age and he thought this would be a fun thing to try.
He hasn't wrapped his entire sense of self worth into hours of fake camaraderie and thousands of words of insincere praise and flattery. He just came along and inadvertently made it very clear how hollow the false friend system is.
The elephant in the authonomy room is not only visible but tap dancing with such ferocity that it is bringing the ceiling down.
I feel for all the people who thought they were playing the game the way Harper Collins wanted only to find out all their conscientious reading and reviewing was a big fat waste of time! Anything goes apparently.
They thought those were cracks in the system that HC were trying to close, not that HC wanted exploited as loudly as possible!
I think the writers have a right to be grouchy. Mainly with HC.
Why did the gamers have to mob the forums as well? To rub noses in it? They would've looked more noble if they had just hit and run.
I think the next mob of pranksters do a better job of it. Hope they hit before the end of the month. Won't that be wonderful publicity and a wonderful boost in membership for Authonomy!
I think all - or at least most - of you, have blown this out of proportion.
I actually sat down and read through everything that's been said here, and this whole discussion makes me so tired. I don't know everything about how this site works, and I happen to be one of the people who didn't sign up to vote for Klazart's book, but the way you reason around the rules when it comes to spreading the word to your friends is making me frustrated.
You say you have your community here, that you have a way to deal with trolls and a way that your forums and community works. Of course you do, but the more people who join up with your site, the more people can and most likely will give you the feedback you're all looking for when you post your work here. Are you upset because your own work isn't "backed up without reading" or are you upset because your work isn't climbing as fast as Klazart's? It sounds to me like you are only looking for a way to get him out, so you can get your own work up faster again. And yet some of you state you don't see this as a competition.
This clearly IS a game, a competition. A competition for a company to maybe sign your books, or at least for the feedback you can get from them. How can it be wrong to want to get there, when that's the reason (I believe) many of you joined the site in the first place? If the book (as some of you have presented here) isn't good, I doubt the company will publish it. What Klazart is looking for (I've heard him say this himself) is some feedback, what can help him make it better.
Also it makes me down right pissed off the way some/most of you speak of our (the Starcraft- ) community. How can the people who Klazart has come in contact with in some way online the last years not be counted for just because it is online and/or a gaming community? How can you even begin to think that someone creating 100 accounts to make his book rise in the rankings to be the same thing as posting somewhere online to get people whom you've given a lot to to give something back to you? I could say right now that it is easier to create 100 accounts on the site even using proxies, than to accomplish what Klazart has for the Starcraft community, and/or for the people who watches his videos.
I take personal offence by the people in these comments who seem to mentions that the "klazartians" are all male gamer nerds who never read books. I'm a female college student who spends more time reading books than I do on playing Starcraft, and I'm currently studying English Creative Writing, which makes me consider myself a writer. The stereotype you paint out for the people who just joined your site to check out a book of someone they have talked to or watched online - as your rules clearly not only states but encourage people to do - is plain hilarious.
I also find it funny how no one complained about the rules or lack of them, until now. Some posts include a "I've been saying this all along" comment, but apparently it wasn't enough to make you leave until someone actually manage to get up to that top5 you speak of, faster than you have. Most of you say that you have posted on your blogs, on facebook and other ways and it happens to be that youtube is a place where Klazart ventilate and puts his thoughts. Maybe he doesn't put it in the same format you do on the above mentioned sites, but that is what he's doing there. You also tend put us all in the same box with other labels, such as "people who live in their mother's basement", you mention the "level of blind idealism in today's youth", and with comments such as "you could market the book by pairing it with "Ten sure-fire ways to kiss a girl before you're thirty." This makes me take this site and its followers even less serious than I did when I first heard about this whole flamewar, just a couple of days ago.
If you call the people on this site your friends, and you call it a core community, I see no reason not to stay in touch with them even if you have left the site. Some of you mention leaving, but also having a hard time with it, because of the friends you have made here. If you like the community and have friends there, stay, if it's not worth it, leave. Klazart's book hasn't changed anything, just made a fault in the rules and ways of the site more obvious.
How can you think that Klazart being a gamer changes anything. Does he not deserve being published, or even getting the feedback from the publishers because of that? Seriously. If you really disagree with what he's done, feel free to say so, but don't claim he did something wrong just because you wouldn't have gotten the backup his book got. Saying things such as "You may get it published, but the writing community will never support it." (what community by the way, from what I know this site isn't the only one out there, and not big enough to contain every writer out there either.) or "You've become a pariah to those who try to get published in a classy and ethical manner." won't change the fact that if he gets published I'm sure it'll be for a good reason, and not only because of him having a lot of people believing in his book. Calling him out for not being ethically correct, or even saying that his book is really bad will not give you anything, most likely not even the satisfaction of getting back at him.
Lastly: Maybe some day I'll have enough faith in a site like this to put my own work up there, and when that day comes, I'll do what I can to get what I want - getting published - as anyone else here is/should be doing.
Rick, thank you, you seem to be a reasonable person.
dalecoz, I'm glad to see someone actually can look forward from this, and realise that every person in each community is a person him or herself, not just a part of a group labelled with writer or gamer.
I think that we need to remember that for Harper Collins Authonomy is not just a way to find new authors, it is also a marketing exercise. (I think that the marketing angle is taken as a given, even if not explicitly stated.) What we, as writers, get out of of a site (feedback, rankings, sales) isn't necessarily what the site owners want out of it (e-publicity, maybe future PODdies, and hopefully some books to buy). No matter what we think, selling a novel does require marketing, and a lot of marketing is networking.
From a marketing perspective this has been successful. Don't forget too, that we writers contributed to that marketing effect by snowballing it.
Not only that, some of Vineet's PR has flowed on to us. People outside Authonomy are starting to talk about it, if only to mention our little contretemps. One of them was an agent. Some of these people may visit--if they haven't already. All the better for the books on the site, I say.
Cab Sav,
That's why so many of us are leaving the snowball. Actually we thought it was a snowball, we were told it was a snowball, and it looked all pretty and new, but now the snow has melted it looks more like something else.
Bravo to the people who realised we were dung beetles all along. Yeah there was an odour, and we questioned it but we thought it would be cleaned up by someone who loved snowballs too.
Thanks so much to the folk who have come along to show us what was really hidden deep down under the snow. We just couldn't see because we were too close to it.
Sounds like a lot of angst, very little of which is based on any sort of legitimate principle. People romanticized the site into more than it was and grew attached to a transient identity that was never going to last. That is the very nature of the internet, and the very nature of online communities. If they didn't change, they would die. I've seen it many times. Vineet worked within the established framework and within the conceptualization of the site.
Complaining about all of this change gives off an air of elitism and perhaps fear of competition. Publishing is a business. Those who speak of "all their hard work" and in the same breath claim an ideology of merit alone demonstrate hypocricy.
Leaving the site because it no longer appeals to you or the reason you posted is gone makes perfect sense, and thus is the nature of an online community. However, Vineet nor HaperCollins can be faulted or blamed in any way, just as you cannot be blamed for leaving.
Those who are leaving merely out of protest are shooting themselves in the foot.
Wow! 56 comments. I've commented a couple of times on this in the forums and I'm not really going to do so here. I've got great friends on Authonomy. Many of them agree with me on this. Many more don't.
My view on the whole situation is much the same as my view on this particular blog post. It's attracted 56 comments - that's omse impressive going. What a terrible shame the equally interesting posts we've had so far on this blog haven't achieved the same response. I do wonder, sometimes, if writers spend too much of their very scarce things fighting the wrong battles.
Vilda,
You had me until "when I first heard about this whole flamewar, just a couple of days ago".
I think this is part of the problem -- people coming because they heard about a "flamewar", not because they heard about a great site for writers.
No judgements here, I can see both sides to a degree.
Just a comment.
I spent 9 months promoting my book on here. Only two members of my family backed my book (mum and sister...I was horrified that they had!) I wanted Hobgoblet to do well on its own merit. It reached No.19 . Good enough for me!Of course I do not think what has gone on is fair but I accept we all have different ideas of what is fair. Had Hobgoblet reached the top 5, I would have been very comfortable that it had been there because people liked it.My book is now private. HC should see that they need to change the system otherwise a lot of people who put invaluable time into reading and backing have lost out. Yes, Authonomy is a game yet it must be a fair one.If we all took the approach to advertise nationwide the site would not cope and a top 5 just could not exist on a reading and backing strategy.
AJK
I'm astounded by many of the critics of Klazart. The monthly top 5 goldrush was never anything other than the most unedifying of spectacles.
In the same way that there'e office politics, there's Authonomy politics. Some people were highly skilled at manipulating the Authonomy community to vote for them (mostly by spending an inordinate amount of time on the site, and by using a great deal of sycophancy and mutual book backing tactics).
The top 5 books each month were usually competent but little more than that - certainly nothing exceptional. Some people said at the start of Authonomy that it would serve the interests of social networkers rather than the cause of good books. Everyone knows that the best book on earth would languish forever on Authonomy if the author made no attempt to promote the book and didn't engage with the community. Authonomy isn't fundamentally about books - it's a popularity poll.
Check out the activity of the top 5 each month and you will find that those people were invariably the most visible on the site in the preceding weeks. In other words, books were getting to the top because their authors were heavily promoting them, not because the novels were particularly good.
Klazart seems like a thoughtful guy. He played the game perfectly, exactly as was intended by HC. He ought to be given a contract for what he's achieved.
Those who complain about him are just sore because a) he was much more successful than they were b) they're snobs with contempt for gamers and c) he exposed the fact that was obvious to many that Authonomy is just a GAME to be played - a literary version of Starcraft, if you will.
It's sheer hypocrisy for many of the "shameless promoters" to condemn Klazart. He was the king of shamelessness, as it turned out, but so what - HC openly encouraged his approach.
Well done Klazart for exposing Authonomy for exactly what it is. Hopefully all those who fondly imagined that Authonomy was something else will now leave, or start playing the game with the same skill as Klazart.
It has to be said that the gamers have been a breath of fresh air in stuffy old Authonomy. Also, they've run rings round the veteran Authonomites, much to my amusement. I might need to check out Starcraft now. I left Authonomy long ago, but I might return if the gamers turn Authonomy into something interesting and innovative. They're certainly capable of it. I've been highly impressed by their input.
Oh for goodness sake.
If any writer has such a great book, why would they need to beg for backings and make agreements to get them?
All this rise for its own merits is such a lot of hypocritical bull.
If anyone genuinely believed that they wouldn't ask for backings and push on the forum. They would sit back and let the quality of the work speak for itself as others slowly discovered it and just *had* to recommend it.
The only reason people are disgruntled is because someone new came along and marketed better and faster than they could.
Does anyone think that authors sell books in the real world by offering to buy other authors' books?
All I'm learning is how many dumb ( to the point of solid wooden-filled cranial cavities) shallow people it takes to ruin a perfectly good website.
One way to fix it is to use the Google type system whereby if you back a book by an author who has already backed you - the backing is worth less or cancels both backings out.
That would put a cat among the pigeons!!!
To Anonymous who wrote the following:
“I've also picked up a subject for my sociology assignment so I really can't thank you enough! In fact, I need to get back to that right now. Good luck on your novels! Chow!”
Please make sure you include in your assignment how Internet communication — this faceless, nameless method of interacting with people — has changed social norms. Without the ability for someone to “look you in the eye”, it makes it very easy to be abusive, to act in less than ethical ways. Just within the limits of what is lawful. Unfortunately the youth of today is taught it is OK to “hit and run”, there is no one to see you. No personal consequences. You are nameless and faceless. Adults are just as bad and they should know better.
Make sure you include how teens are committing suicide because of Internet abuse doled out by his/her own "friends" or peers, just because someone thought it would be “fun” to harass someone. Oh, watch them squirm! Tee, hee, isn’t that funny. Or just because they are so powerless elsewhere in their lives, they exert power in any way they can.
Make sure you include how everything is now reduced to a “game”…it’s all virtual!
I don’t care about Vineet. He did what he did because he could. I don’t know his motivation other than that. I do, honestly, care about some of the young people he brought with him (as well as people that were already here).
It makes me want to cry to see young intelligent people using their talents for such negative purposes as ‘flamewars’ — just a baby step away from participating in ‘real’ wars, perhaps? Conquer and pillage. Loot and burn. And not for any higher ideal…just because YOU CAN.
For a demographic that purportedly wants all wars to stop, I find this intriguing. So, please, make sure you include this in your assignment.
I post this with great sincerity.
What will the site look like in five years' time? The publishing industry is being rocked to its foundations by the global downturn, by the spread of new forms of content distribution. It is short-sighted to consider these questions in terms of just "me, and my book," as writers tend to do (writing being such a solipsistic pursuit.)
Yes, each individual author here is hoping to build a career of his own. But more than that, we're building the future of publishing. We can help to create something that will have lasting value for new writers in years to come. Doesn't it behoove us to conduct ourselves with that in mind?
I object to the posts here suggesting that every participant in authonomy is "out for himself" alone. This accusation may satisfy the egos of those who are indeed "out for themselves," but it is simply not true.
I love how this Vineet person tries to deflect the blame onto the "system" or the publisher's website.
No one of his generation wants to take responsibility for his own actions.
Vineet, you are SOLELY responsible for this, and you can only fix it by deleting your novel.
And what a "successful" marketing ploy: you've managed to make hundreds of writers hate you without ever meeting a single one face to face and seeing what you've done to their dreams. I'm sure a publisher would love to have someone like that in the family.
I read all your text and a random sample of comments - as a realtive newcomer I want to say : I joined because I wanted fellow authors comments about what I am writing. I got them. Most of them were constructive, critical, supportive and one or two came from 'kindred spirits' For me that is what Authonmy is for. I dont really care about the popularity ratings- Good luck to the guy who just wanted quantity not quality - I have to say his approach seemed a bit sad and had the feel of'I will do it for the hell of it' and succeeded in messing up a site that seemed to be functioning well. Marion
Dorkismo, you are so cool as ever. Yes, we are going through the labour pains of a new publishing age. So in a way it is bound to be messy – it’s not just that everyone is positioning themselves, it’s that everyone is trying to work out what the new landscape looks like. So of course there’ll be boundaries pushed until they fall into place, and regrettably there’ll be squashing and jostling.
Who knows what will emerge? I completely agree with you, though – for ME what’s so exciting about the new landscape is the potential for writers to band together in collectives, small presses, and more than that to start pushing at the boundaries of form and method. It really is SUCH an exciting time. There will be a lot of great writers who fall between the cracks in this tectonic upheaval (how many metaphors can I jam in?) which is a terrible shame. I don’t think we can blame any of the people who are playing with the new scenery for that, though. What I can say is that I do want to play a part in supporting as many of my fellow writers as I can; and I know I’m not in a minority of one here.
Personally I think it's a real shame. The site worked because of its sense of community. That was the valuable part. The Eds desk was always pretty meaningless - that's been clear for a while. You cannot build a town on top of a village and expect it to still feel like a village. It doesn't. I've no doubt the 'town' will be pulled down because of lack of interest once Klazart reaches the Eds desk - but I'm afraid the village will be rubble by then. These things don't work in reverse. I believe the new 'talent spotters' should definitely have been deleted from the TSR, although the book could have stayed. It's too late now I suspect.
Tricia (PJ)
Anonymous 21:24,
First, I stand behind everything I say, I don't hide. Second, I am disgusted that people would follow instructions so blindly. I don't care if it takes five minutes, or five years. It's disturbing. And, my comment was based on some of teh conversations I had with his fans. Of course it is a fringe of his fans that are a little unstable, but he definitely has some that are WAY off.
I wasn't calling his followers fascists, I was simply pointing out that blindly following anything is dangerous and goes against the ideals we hold sacred in this society. That is not a stretch.
Vineet,
All the best to you. I have very little problem with you. However, you are an icon for your community, and while you cannot be responsible for each memember, you do need to be careful what influence you are weilding aginst them. That your video ended up on a hackers site was not an unforseeable outcome.
And, to the other anon,
if you were referring to a comment I made in the forum, it was tongue in cheek. My brother is a gamer and computer programmer, and has never lived in my mother's basement.
One example - Geoff wasted his time writing - according to MS Word - 1842 words, and there are similar sized comments. This is short story length for 2000 word competitions = a far better way of getting sleeves rolled up and out there.
You all claim to be writers and I notice some of you are still sucking up to HC. Leave the stupid site alone - ur [sic]a bunch of naive fools if you think you will get anything out of this.
Look here from USA for a fresh POV
http://lighthouse-writing-tips.blogspot.com/
and here to try and get into something different
Lemon Corkscrew
Well, I'm going to have to weigh in. Wait for the feather.
Of all the comments, I have to highlight this one to Vineet:
"...you've managed to make hundreds of writers hate you without ever meeting a single one face to face."
Not fair, not true. Some of this abuse is thrown so thoughtlessly - have YOU ever been a 'public figure', done broadcast, news media, popular blogs or TV? Have you ever been attacked by 'anonymous' posters? It can REALLY hurt. Aren't aty's contributors thoughtful and imaginative enough to understand that?
Hundreds of people do not hate him. You might, I don't and neither do many others I know.
We might debate him, but we don't hate him. It does sound like the 'alternative' poetry of teen rebellion, doesn't it?
But hate is a funny word to use for someone who challenged a system that you don't belong to or control. You do start to worry about human nature sometimes.
I did find it wildly ironic/amusing that HC quoted me in the authonomy blog. READ THE DAMN SECOND BOOK. There. That's a subtle message for 'them'.
Vineet and his friends brought life and debate back to aty. You all need to read latter JG Ballard - Super-Cannes or Cocaine Nights.
Or live in Dubai.
Only then can you understand. This was a good thing, people. It might suck in many ways, but it was a good thing.
Well, after reading many many comments I thought to myself, "What would everyone say if J K Rowling posted her new manuscript here?" I am thinking, would she be "cheating" or "joining the club"?
I had been an Authonomy member since November 2008 and I left after the Klazart incident. I'd been planning to leave for a while and this just pushed me over the edge. There were three things that made up my mind. First, as flawed as the Authonomy model was/is, I don't think it was ever conceived as an American Idol type popularity contest. And that is what Klazart made it. By doing so he demeaned, with HC's blessing, the artistic efforts and tremendous time commitment that many people had made. Second, as unpublished authors we have all had to come to terms with how our artistic vision fits with the mainstream reality of art in a postmodern capitalist society. Klazart's ploy was a reminder that form invariably trumps substance in today's world. That is a difficult pill for thinking people and it was made worse by the torn jeans and t-shirt, text message mentality of Klazart's cult. Third, Authomomy has never performed acceptably as a website and the performance problems brought on by the onslaught made me realized how much time I'd been wasting waiting for screen refreshes when I could have been doing something productive.
anon 19:20
Vineet ain't no JK Rowling. Get a grip. And, once again, her fans actually read her books. Another clear distinction between our little friend and an actual writer.
L. Screw et al -
It takes about ten seconds to write these little blurbs which is done on breaks from actual writing.
No time pointing out shitty underhanded behavior is ever wasted. If no one points, things get glossed over. No one has any illusions that you or anyone else will change their minds. Only that someone should cry "foul" when a foul has occurred. No. This was not a good thing. No, supporting it is not the right response.
As for the otion that it was always this way and nothing here is different than anything anyone else might do, no again.
My book, removed from the site now, made it to 23 in the overall rankings. It hit and remained in the top ten of its various genres for the time it was on the site. I guarantee it will be published within the next couple years. Because it's good.
I never swapped a vote. I never spammed another Authonomite (Authonomist?). I never kissed up to anyone whose work I believed was sub-par. I read. I gave my honest opinion, for whatever it's worth. I popped in and out of the forums but was by no means a constant presence. I had a good time and kept it light.
Number 23 out of thousands. Not an accident. Not the result of politics or cheating. As with everything I earn, it is the result of work.
I really think it's pathetic that this poser cynicism that so many seem to espouse is being passed off as intelligence.
No, kids, sorry. Not everyone has to skate to get by. Some people can actually do the thing. And they respect the doing.
Cynicism is cowardice in the face of competition, not an accurate grasp of the real world. People tell themselves that "everybody" is doing it the shitty way to excuse their own shitty behavior in advance. Sorry. Not everyone is a grifter. You are responsible for your actions. There are no excuses.
wake up.
agh. hit the wrong button. sorry for the typos.
Make sure you include how teens are committing suicide because of Internet abuse doled out by his/her own "friends" or peers, just because someone thought it would be “fun” to harass someone. Oh, watch them squirm! Tee, hee, isn’t that funny. Or just because they are so powerless elsewhere in their lives, they exert power in any way they can.
Make sure you include how everything is now reduced to a “game”…it’s all virtual!
This is just silly. You know better than that. There were bullies long before the internet existed and people have gamed systems since forever. Just look at politics. Nothing virtual about that. Some people will do anything as long as there's a prize. You're just using the internet as a scapegoat. Your first point was good though, and I'll have something written to that effect. Thanks.
I was informed of this whatever it is---blog---whatever---and when I came here I noticed that right underneath it there was a self-publishing article. Hmmm.
I've been writing for a little over 30 years and some people tell me I have a lot of "street creds" having been published in many literary journals and magazines, over the years. I started writing poems when I was a kid and discarded hundreds before one was ever published. I then began writing short stories and longer novel-length material. I have had many compliments over these many years from publishers, editors and readers and also many, too many to post here, rejections and offers to publish my stuff if only I'd change this or that or ... well, you get the picture?
My problem is not with Klazart, I could care less if and when he gets his work on the editor's desk, in fact I made a You-tube video myself, at the insistence of my son a gamer himself on that very site and I now have sent it to the last two publishers who published one of my short story's in the March issue of their respective on and off-line magazines. One is in the UK, Neonbeam, and the other is the Whortleberry Press, in the U.S.and they both immediately responded that they have posted the YouTube I made as an answer to Klazart and I will send it to others also---no problem with that---my problem, as it has been for the past 30-plus years is with the publisher and their intent and purpose.
Is HC actually interested in the content of the stories or are they just interested in obtaining publicity for their website? Are they actually interested in writing talent or are they interested in a writer who can bring a pre-sold number of books to them? Will anybody at the editor's desk actually read any of your work or will they just offer you a POD contract? I get two or three of these a week on my email and website.
So, that's my only interest here and I think also most of the writer's here would agree that it's their's also. If this is just another slush-pile then let's find out from an HC representative whether it is or it isn't? Klazart complains of his loss of time---brother, you've no idea how much time too many writer's have spent here, no unearthly idea.
So, to any and all Harper/Collins representatives, could you please answer the above question because if this is just a site where you are using me as an (unpaid) reader, please inform me now and I will remove the five books I have posted.
The only other comment I have on the subject of Klazart is this: I made a You-Tube because of what he did, believe me I wouldn't have otherwise, but I sent it to other publishers who have seen my work and whose readers can actually read and write and give mindful critiques of literary work and your (so-called) readers are, here:
I'm Gary Greb in this enlightening conversation.
GaryGreb (13 seconds ago) Show Hide Reply Remove
Well mystervj, if its just being bored that is your problem why don't you take up another hobby; how about reading---like maybe a book. Think you could handle that? Maybe your Godfather Klazart could point you in the right direction.
Keith G.
mystervj (1 hour ago) Show Hide Reply
I am writing because I am bored, not out of any motive, youtube is a site build on entertainment, go figure.
And you can't speak for publishers nor their intentions, if klaz wants to be regonized, and this is the way he want to do it. So be it, this isn't against any rule but your own.
Klaz himself is a highly respected individual in the SC community, who are regonized as the godfather of SC commentating and have made much contribution for youtube.
I rest my case and await your (HC) answer to my above question and thank you in advance.
Peace,
Keith G.
Anon 01:15,
You're wrong. Dead wrong. I've been around enough to understand not only what the ethics of a community with a clear social contract looks like, but also what one looks like without it.
When I lived in Cape Town I was amazed at how much one has to watch their back. There was a general consensus that such-and-such a group is doing it, so I am going to, too. He's doing it, so it makes it right for me. And of course, what is anyone going to do about it? The police are too busy. So, basically anything went. We're talkinga world where you paid for your phone charges in advance, because people could not be trusted to pay their phone bills. There are a great many factors that led to this which are beyond the scope of this post, for me to get into, but the genreal attitude was, this is life. I can do what I want, but I have to watch my back because everyone else shares that attitude. (Let me say I love SA, inspite of it all and did find pockets of honest community and met some truly generous souls).
I now live on a farm in Canada. We know our neighbours. Most of them have known each other for at least 50 years (we have a lot of old farmers out here). We pay to have our weeds removed from our pastures, because we know they will harm the neighbours alph-alpha crop. Not because the weed inspector says so. If the lady next door needs eggs to do some baking, we go out to the chicken coop and get her some. It's the way we operate. We know each other and we know we need each other. We have a strong social contract and sense of responsibility to each other. It's how we all get by.
Now a days technology makes it easy not to care. Piss the guys off at your neighbourhood pub? Oh well, find a new one you can drive to a few blocks down. Don't like your neighbour? Doesn't matter. Drive across town and hang out with people who think exactly like you do. Tick a whole town off? Move.
Then there's the internet. No social responsibility at all. If so-and-so is doing it, it must be ok. No one is going to say no. And, if I have a problem with this group of people, I'll leave and find a new group in the click of a button. Or, I'll launch a cyber-bullying attack. Who will stop me?
Here, if my kid was picking on the neighbour's kid, I'd get a phone call and we'd sort it out in a second. In the case of adults (extremely rare) the community sorts it out according to our unspoken social contract. Who sorts it out when my kid gets cyber attacked on the internet? Who do I call to talk it over? The attacker never even has to see my child, or know the consequences. The lack of human empathy has been eroded, not only by a lack of responsibility, but by hyped media violence and a world that condones seizing power however necessary.
The internet provides the ultimate blameless world. The only one to be blamed is the victim for sticking their neck out into the big bad world. It's bullshit. What happened to a socially responsible world?
We won't eat anything with a face anymore, but on the internet you don't have a face. Just an avatar that could be anything or anyone. No emotions or feelings to read.
We did manage a community on our little piece of cyber space called Authonomy. Our social contract was not conformed to. Is it so wrong that people felt hurt and reacted? Oh right, it's a big bad world out there. Expect it. What ever happened to feeling responsible for each other as humans. Yeah, I know. Those days are over, right? But maybe sloww down and have a little sympathy for the community that was here and trying to carve out a sense of responsibility to its members.
And I repeat, just because something isn't wrong, doesn't make it right.
Thats Interesting .I have a question
I just want to download this game on my system can I download this game online.
free massive multiplayer online game
Surely the benefit of this site is in connecting with other writers and having your work critiqued by your target audience.
The fact that no contracts have yet been awarded to the ED books shows that there's not really any point in working hard to get on the ED.
The HC editors are clever enough to work out that the best marketed books are not necessarily the books worth publishing. ( and this is not to say that the ED books aren't worth it) The rankings of the awarded contracts show that the editors are reading broadly across all postings.
Networking and rankings don't make us better writers. Writing and revising do and there are lots of wonderful people on this site willing to share objective opinions to help us improve.
We should celebrate this and settle down to some real work.
Laura Essendine
The Accidental Guru Blog
Reply to Geoff - a few seconds to write 1800 words? You are good! I'm worried you took your book off for the wrong reasons.a. you are fed up with Authonomy or b. You finally realised the truth- auth is a waste of time and a hopeless exercise. No 23? In how long? Three months? Cheaper than posting off your letters and chapters which you should have been doing.
If you all want a Writer's Facebook; fine. Klazart will now probably find a publisher more as a result of all the hysteria on the site than through any literary credentials. He also has a new story - "how me and my pals rooked that jumped up website competition with no prizes at the end of it."
There are - or were - some fine stories here. No point in having a Porsche in the garage if you lost the key. Park your book here - a good idea for a back up copy if your PC/Mac goes down.
Someone said "I wouldn't read Vineet's book..." Weird principle. What if it is a best seller? As we all know from rejections and our own reading - it doesn't take many pages to realise you have a good one or a piece of crap..
Vineet,
Why did you remove your post? I had a response.
I have to say that I feel, as a member of the gaming and starcraft community, somewhat offended by the comments by many of the users here. It is completely unfair to classify all of us as white-trash, wearing t-shirts and torn jeans, or living in our mother's basement. A large portion of us are in college and working a job on top of it to make ends meet. We have bright futures in medicine, science, technology, music, art, and more. We are working hard to make these dreams come true. Don't disparage us for being gamers in our free time.
Reality Check: Look around you. I would bet this site is webmastered and cared for by young people, most of whom play games in their free time. In fact, you will find that most, if not all, of the wonderful things you do online(from networking sites to news sources to online communities) are supported and made possible by young people. By gamers.
It's true that Klazart has a following of gamers. And it may not be completely "fair" to established people to have been leapfrogged by him. But there is a community that supports Klazart and is interested in his life endeavors, many of which we hear him talk about so eloquently. Whatever happens to this book will certainly be known in our community. There is nothing wrong with having an interested and active audience.
Honestly, everyone should come out better for this. Think of all the people now who have suddenly heard of authonomy, myself included. You will find that a lot of us "gamer nerds" are also big time readers. Remember, we buy books too. A lot of them. We also tend to be analytical and extremely solution oriented. Those of us that stay and find time to read other books will be giving quality input. It's what we do. We criticize, analyze, and develop.
Everyone should be excited for a larger more diverse community, because that is what comes when gamers arrive. Starcraft users have no national, ethnic, cultural, or educational boundaries. We come from across the globe and many of us speak several languages, with English being our common bond. Take the time to know us and I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
I think it is sad that this discussion is no longer about the book itself. Being Indian myself, I found his book to be quite enlightening and his characters to be very powerful. Of course its not perfect, but isn't the point of this site to make the writing better?
Dear Harper Collins,
I would like to bring your attention to the illegal and unethical activities of one of Authonomy's members: Username "Stef Nalton".
As you have stated in your official statements, Klazart was within the rules of the site and has done nothing wrong. Mr. Nalton on the other hand has capitalized on his high TSR ranking and spent the last few days artificially inflating the rankings of the top 5 books in order to keep "Lesser Sins" at #6.
Mr. Nalton has spammed every Authonomy user with a proposal to back their book if they will back any of the top 5 books. This is an example of the type of message he has been leaving:
"Hi Sherry, due to the blitzkrieg on the site by over a thousand fans of the #6 book author, i was garnering support for two of the books on the Ed's desk to help nullify the effect they were having. This has been successful but has now demoted "The Shadows Map" (which is on my shelf - click on my usename to access it) If you haven't read it, and do so now, let me know if you back it and I shall give your book a boost with my #2 TSR vote. No probs if you're not interested. All the best, stef nalton."
His messages to users are generally a variation of this:
"Let me know if you backed these books and I shall support you in return (I'm the Number 1 talent spotter so my vote would help your book's position somewhat)."
This underhanded bribery of other users in order to manipulate the ranking system is clearly unethical and a violation of Authonomy's terms of service and in my humble opinion, he should be banned from the site.
Incidentally, if you are wondering how his proposals have been received this is the reply from Ms. Sherry:
"Hey, I'm really new to this game. You need to explain to me what you want me to do. And to quite frank, I'll be happy to screw up that other guys ratings, just like he did to everyone else. I have a question, if I back a book, then remove it does this affect it's ratings? Or do they stay the same?"
Another example of Mr. Nalton's manipulation of the ranking system:
"Hi David, thanks for the support. I seem to have demoted "The Shadows Map" to number 4 (on my shelf) during this campaign, and would be eternally grateful if you would remove the book you already backed and replace it with Shadows Map. I shall back yours later when i return from work. All the best, stef
Word to the wise: Be wary of starting a manipulation contest with gamers. If there's a trick or algorithm, they'll find it and abuse it. But then again, you should already know that...
Hi KeithG. 3 good questions I'm glad you asked.
Here's my answers:
"Is HC actually interested in the content of the stories or are they just interested in obtaining publicity for their website?"
We're definitely interested in the content - and we're interested to cast our net wide in order to hear what the 1.5 billion book-reading people with web access think is good content. As you might guess from scale and complexity of this endeavor, authonomy.com took a considerable investment of time and resource to develop so it would offer authors a viable (and free of charge) alternative to jiffy-bag-in-dark-cupboard scenario: clearly there would have been far easier ways to get publicity for publicity's sake.
In fact, all in, the average book takes serious 5-figure sums of investment from a publisher to get from manuscript to bookshop - so apart from reasons of editorial aesthetic judgement, we are compelled financially to be very discriminating with content.
I know a lot of authonomists (Alexander's one of our most vocal commentators so check out his blog - no doubt he'd like me to say read his book 'Olives' also ;)) would like us to 'be brave' / 'engaged' and invest in and publish most books that make it to the Editor's Desk. Now, personally speaking (I can't speak for other people working on authonomy - we are independent-thinking people you know!), I like 'crowdsourcing our list' as an interesting, abstract idea (and I'd bet there would be loads of publicity!) but the economics of publishing don't allow it: the reason we can't do that is the amount of investment and core belief it currently takes to launch a single book...(If you are challenged/frustrated about this bottleneck, well, me too. But don't just talk to us; talk to your booksellers and bookbuyers.) So yes, we take content extremely seriously - it is paramount.
The good news is that, via new methods like authonomy ("other good sites are available") I believe seriously good talent is being surfaced more easily.
"Are they actually interested in writing talent or are they interested in a writer who can bring a pre-sold number of books to them? "
We - along with all the publishers and agents using authonomy - are very interested in finding new writing talent and widening/improving our the search, which is why we developed authonomy. For reasons outlined above, we will only invest in books we believe are good. You don't have to pre-sell a book to get a publishing contract. If you can show a publisher you have the ability to attract a following, this is not a bad thing. For example, you could use authonomy, or another website, as a tool to gather an army of support.
"Will anybody at the editor's desk actually read any of your work or will they just offer you a POD contract?"
Yes, if your work reaches the Editor's Desk we promise to read at least 10,000 words. In addition, there's concrete evidence that editors and agents are searching the site using other methods (eg genre searches and talent spotters' shelves) to find - and read - good stuff.
There's a lot of misunderstanding about print on demand, digital printing technology, vanity publishing (three VERY distinct subjects often bundled together due to the amount of spam authors have to suffer!) which I won't go into here, but the Editor's Desk mechanism is designed to bring good content to the attention of editors for consideration for a 'traditional' (usually this entails litho-printed, multiple-print run, publisher-invested) publishing contract.
KeithG - Hope this helps.
Q for everyone else - does this enlighten sufficiently for me to post as a separate blog post, or is it stating stuff you guys already know?
Kate
x
Kate - I think you should put that as a separate blog post *and* as a thread on the forums. That way it will get maximum exposure!
Kate,
definitely post this as a separate blog. As someone who has benefited immensely from the experience of reaching the ED here, I think this is worthy of a discussion all of its own.
L. Screw-
You, like a lot of people, make a lot of assumptions that are off the mark. What makes you think the book isn't out? AUTHONOMY is just one market. Hell, it's not even the only way to approach HARPER COLLINS.
To me the site was always an experiment. An interesting one and one I hoped would work and become the norm. Other publishers have similar efforts underway but none that work the way AUTHONOMY purports to which is as a transparent combination of slush pile and peer review.
I don't "claim" to be a writer. Right now, among other things, I'm scripting two comic books, writing a film treatment, one short story/novella and two novels. I'm having this conversation while taking breaks.
I took my books down for the reasons I said.
HC (it's just H now, right?) is a large company with many subsets. It is, itself, just a component of a larger conglomerate.
AUTHONOMY is at issue here. Nothing else.
What actually is it?
It's a simple question.
TO: Kate Hyde
Kate,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions; you see one of the main problems I have had over the years with publishers is that they’re all more attuned to numbers than they are to the story; in other words they’re more interested in the bottom line than they are in publishing literature. When a publisher mentions economics to me I shutter because it has been mentioned to me many times before and the reality of today’s publishing industry is the bare, cold hard fact that Miley Cyrus received a seven figure advance on her autobiography. Her life story, for God’s Sake, this girl is fifteen years old. I'll try to keep my sarcasm to a minimum but do you see my point?
Everyday a writer goes to a well to get nourishment to write; in fact everyday a Human Being has to go to get that same nourishment just to get him/her through the day and the only difference between where writers go to get this nourishment, I believe, is what separates them and their writing, which is an extension of the person writing the story.
My well, as I believe is true of most writers, after spending intolerable amounts of time researching the subject, lies inside myself it lies inside my heart, and the heart is a lonely hunter, and the writer is a very lonely hunter, also. When his/her work is done there is no praise, no cheers, no bonuses and very little recognition and yet here is Miley Cyrus (fill in any name) “writing” her autobiography for an advance that most writers will never see for all their works combined.
When Hitler and the Nazi Party first took over Germany one of the first things they did was burn all the books they DIDN’T like; they obviously liked “Mein Kampf.” Today, where would they find these books to burn? I read a great deal and I’m not sure I know the answer to that question? I’m not saying H/C doesn’t publish some good books, no … I’m just sayin’ …
Kind Regards,
Keith G.
(Usually I read all the comments but this time it's just too overwhelming!)
Wow, what a fascinating development for Authonomy, and I think the reaction is exactly right: the only weaknesses this exposed were the ability to scale and the TSR scoring mechanism, both of which are now being addressed.
Seth Godin has it exactly right: it's all about tribes now. Build a tribe and take it with you. Building your tribe somewhere else and then bringing it to Authonomy is very likely to be a stronger strategy than building a tribe within Authonomy.
I continue to watch developments with great interest.
Just a few random toughts:
How can you say the Klazart fans attacked the community? Those who joined did not "attack" it at all, until you guys made a thread saying bad things about Klazart, saying bad things about what he did, saying he cheated, saying he was a hacker, and then came response from the fans who back Klazart. You started the community breakdown yourself.
If you are here for the good critics and help you get from the people here, and here for the community, not the contest part of the page, then why did you care that he got to to the top?
You are lying both to yourselves and to others apparently when you say things like that.
The entire problem was the community response to what Klazart did.
If you had just accepted that he promoted the book better than you, but not care because you were here for the community, nothing would have happened.
And if you was here for the rankings, you should find a way to promote your own book, not throw shit against the person who did it.
If you read Klazart's comments around in the forums and such, you will see he has been nothing but nice to you. And that the "random backers" did you no wrong on the forum until you started the war against Klazart(Who is too nice to deffend himself).
In high school, for AP English we used to joke that only books approved by "writers in their ivory white towers" could be used on the test. I thought it was a joke, but apparently there was some truth to it. The mass arrogance and closed-mindedness of the veterans here shocked me. Apparently my image of writers being creative, open people was very wrong. Instead you insult new members and are surprised when they fight back. Get off your high horse authonomy users. If you all truly believed that the "highest quality work of writing" should be at the top, there would be no back room deals going on for backing books. And from what I can see, that's been happening for a long time.
What's sad is that I'm sure that most members of authonomy didn't particularly mind Lesser Sins' rise and certainly didn't try to insult the new population, yet they still get lumped in with all the biased ones. To these users: thank you for being open minded and at least taking a second to gather yourself before responding.
For everyone else: show some respect to people you don't understand until you get to know them. If you don't, you just look arrogant and bigoted and deserve whatever is thrown back at you.
Oh Dear, I just added my book to the latest pile last night and now I'm already wondering if I've done the right thing. I can easily get all my family and friends and anyone I know to back my book and so rank it higher, but most have not read it and so this defeats the purpose. If the aim of this site is to gain access to an editors desk I may revert to to old old way of sending out sample chapters.
It seems everyone wants to bitch and complain, as if they had a perfect solution. Blah, blah, blah...
I feel the positive aspects of Authonomy's presence far outweighs these occasional growing pains.
Suck it up people and move on.
I grew tired of the competitive nature of the site long ago and removed my writing. On another site I'm, TheNextBigWriter they focus on crits and feedback and while they run contests, they aren't reliant on the contestants judging each other. It's a recipe for disaster and constant bickering. You can't blame writers who play by the rules. I think Authonomy is split, like the nature of its site, on the one hand wanting this behavior to bring in more people and at the same time concerned that it's going to disrupts their existing community. Good luck figuring it out.
Tonpole's comment, quoted in HC's original post, raises a point that I think has been overlooked in all this. Klazart's longstanding fans have his voice in their ear; they are bringing the whole of their knowledge of him to bear on their judgment of his book. That judgment is therefore, to a large extent, irrelevant in terms of a wider commercial readership who will not have heard his StarCraft commentaries, will not have his voice in their ear, will not have any expectations of the book simply because they know the author.
I read Klazart's book and, frankly, found it wanting - and certainly without a fraction of the literary merit of most others that have done time on the desk.
And, for the record, I found HC's response to the whole episode even more disturbing than the episode itself. It's become pretty clear over the last few months that they're not remotely interested in "flushing out the brightest, freshest new writing talent around". What they do want from Authonomy remains unclear.
I haven't been around for a while. As ABNA has been going through their elimination rounds.
So HarperCollins and all -- what's the bottom line now that most of the hooplah has died down? Is activity up, down or the same. Is there a sense that many of Klazart's fans have stuck around or not? Have you found that many of your loyal Authonomy authors have stuck around or gone looking for greener pastures? Just curious. Since, HC, you put your faith on the Klazart crew -- just wondered how that wager worked out.
Good for him. This site is difficult enough to work and all authors agree that you have to be on daily or your book goesdown the charts.
Its a pity that harper collins doesn't put a reader onto this site to propel books in their direction that deserve it.
Daddy's Little Spy being one of them. pamela
I think this illustrates all that is wrong with this site. I came on here with high hopes, I also use Youwriteon. I found it very disheartening that to get anywhere depends more on networking ability and the amount of time you can spare than on literary ability. A contact I had from YWO came on here with high hopes but has already left the site after only a matter of weeks. Although I'm still on here, I have virtually given up in despair. The YWO site has it's faults but at least their system means that the better books rise to the surface, not the case on here.
Disappointed and dejected.
Hi and goodbye.
I have been censored by Authonomy and Harper Collins.
They will be removing my book.
I got the following from them a few hours back – I’ve reproduced their e-mail to me at the bottom of this. I just read it now.
It’s only matter of time before I disappear. So I’m writing this quickly before they close my account.
I just wanted to thank you for your support. It looks like this little adventure has come to a sad end at 790.
I think what they are doing is wrong. And it’s a shame.
I guess the lesson is this:
Don’t tell stories from a world outside the main stream.
If you do, don’t be too honest. Don’t be to frank. Don’t tell your story in your own words.
Don’t use the words that real people speak. Don’t describe the things that real people do.
Tread carefully around the truth of your life. Be careful not to offend mainstream tastes.
Or Authonmy will remove you too.
Thank you so much for everything. For the thoughtful comments. The encouragement and for making me feel welcome.
I’ve posted the book at www.filthytrannnywhore.com
Tonight I will probably cry myself to sleep.
Love and kisses and tears.
X
Lavinia.
Email me if you want: laviniadarling@gmail.com
P.S If you disagree with their decision, write to them and tell them how you feel. I will.
Authonmy’s email to me follows….
____________
authonomy@news.harpercollins.co.uk>
to "laviniadarling@gmail.com"
date Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:14 PM
subject Authonomy: unsuitable
hide details 8:14 PM (4 hours ago)
Dear Lavinia
Thanks for joining authonomy - the community site for writers, readers and publishers.
Unfortunately the biography you have chosen is unsuitable for the site and we've removed it.
To submit a new biography, login at www.authonomy.com and edit your profile. Please look at our terms and conditions for further details on what you can and can't write on authonomy.
Thanks,
The authonomy team
Follow us on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/authonomy
Post a Comment