Crossing Paths: Published Author Goes Self-Published, As Self-Published Author Considers Big Publishing Deal

from the which-way-do-you-go? dept

Tue, Mar 22nd 2011 8:27am — Mike Masnick

So we just wrote about best-selling author Barry Eisler's decision to turn down a half-a-million dollar book deal, in order to self-publish. In the conversation, some people pointed out that he could do this, since he'd already built up an audience. Of course, just a few weeks ago, we wrote about Amanda Hocking, an entirely self-published author who was making a ton of money, having built up her own audience with incredibly cheap ebooks.

Yet, as many people noted, the very same day that Eisler announced that he was passing on that big contract, lots of folks in publishing were buzzing about the fact that Hocking appears ready to sign a million-dollar-plus publishing contract, heading in the other direction. Some will suggest that this shows that self-publishing doesn't work. After all, if it did work, why would she sign such a deal? I'm not convinced that's actually true. There are plenty of reasons why she might be interested in this kind of deal, though, not all of them may be good reasons.

I think plenty of authors still think they need a big publishing deal to consider themselves to have "made it." Even if they're collecting tons of money elsewhere. On top of that, someone handing you a million dollars (or more) upfront sure must be difficult to ignore -- even if it comes with strings and may be less lucrative in the long run. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Honestly, though, if I were in Hocking's shoes, I'd realize that I have the leverage here, and that means a lot more than just getting the top dollar. She easily could be in a position to negotiate the key things she really wants/needs from a publisher, without giving in to the terms and strings that typically come with a publishing deal. The marketing support (if it works) could obviously help, even with the giant fanbase she's built up. But she could do a deal for just marketing, where she doesn't necessarily have to give up so much on the other side. Either way, this will be an interesting case study to follow over the next few years.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: amanda hocking, authors, barry eisler, business models, publishing, self-publishing

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 8:19am

I hope she will read about Eisler and, at the very least, demand to retain all or most of the ebook rights to her work.

Luckily, regardless of what happens, I think this will still increase the push towards self-publishing. For those authors who do still believe they need a big-house deal to "make it", this will show them that self publishing some work doesn't actually close that door, and in fact may be the best way to get a foot in it. I think there are a lot of authors out there sitting on manuscripts that they want to sell and worried about self-publishing lest it destroy their value in the traditional ecosystem - and this might be the nudge they need. Whether or not they too will leverage self-pubbing into a deal, or decide that they can make it better on their own, remains to be seen (I suspect quite a few will discover the latter)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  Agreed, but another thing.
  
  I don't think we should be afraid to acknowledge that big publishing in books, movies, and music might still be the best way for a select group of people. I have no problem with labeled musicians, or authors publishing with houses, or script-writers getting the big movie deal. That's awesome for them and a million dollar publishing deal is still a million dollar publishing deal.
  
  What's cool is that the barriers for everyone else are lowering or gone. The rest of the non-select few that big deals aren't an option for can still get their art out there, and that's awesome. Pointing at Hocking and saying, "She was self-published and now she's doing a publishing deal, so that means self-publishing doesn't work" is focusing on the wrong thing. The real truth is that Hocking is known because self-publishing is an option and how many other authors are more known now than they would have been if that wasn't an option....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't think we should be afraid to acknowledge that big publishing in books, movies, and music might still be the best way for a select group of people. I have no problem with labeled musicians, or authors publishing with houses, or script-writers getting the big movie deal.
    
    Agreed - but I do have a problem with them being required to sign away most of the rights to their creation in order to do so. Even the existence of self-publishing as a legitimate option is going to change the entire landscape of contracts and negotiations in publishing: the big houses won't be able to say "hand over everything to us, or nobody will ever read your work" anymore. So I think (and hope) that the balance of power is going to shift considerably, and even those traditional big-money deals are going to start looking a lot different.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - zegota (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Exactly which rights is she being forced to sign away? People are automatically assuming that a publishing contract is the devil, when I've rarely seen that to be the case. Should authors being making a higher percentage of profits? Maybe, but that's not really a case of rights.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Largely I'm talking about the ebook sales percentages, which are what prompted Eisler to turn down a half-mil publishing offer. I suppose you could argue that's not a case of rights being "signed away" but my point stands: she has to make sure she gets good terms in her contract, or this could end up as a loss in the long run.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JRTomlin, 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, of course, you sign over rights. In the case of current contracts you sign over huge rights much more than previously for very extended periods. The rights are what the publisher pays you for. What do you MEAN you don't sign away rights?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        zegota (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, you sign over some rights, obviously -- some copy rights. But no one is "forcing" her to sign those over.
        
        There are some sneaky publishing contracts, but for the most part, contracts are pretty standard now. In any case, Hocking likely has an agent, and for someone with her kind of money, a lawyer, so it's extremely unlikely there's going to be some sort of sneaky fine print that screws her over.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        contracts are pretty standard now
        
        Which is why, when you're right smack in the middle of a massive industry revolution brought on by a breakout new format that completely changes the distribution model, those "standard" contracts deserve renewed scrutiny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        zegota (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, that's completely fair, especially where eBook revenue is concerned. But I think the worry that publishing companies are somehow sneaking in clauses to completely screw the author is overblown.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 11:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It happens.
        
        However, most genre associations maintain something like the SFWA model contract, so you can vet it for yourself.
        
        They also maintain a list of things to watch out for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AdamBv1 (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 8:20am

Always greener on the other side.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CommonSense (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:49am
  
  Re: Always greener on the other side.
  "No matter where I go, I'm letting people know, no matter where you go the grass is always green."
  ...
  "When you watch your dogs just starving
  Don't get mad when they start barkin'
  Here's a suggestion man
  Why don't we just wash our hands
  'Cause I'm peepin' other pastures
  I think it's time I'm my own master."
  -Nathaniel D. Hale
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 22 Mar 2011 @ 8:36am

Its not always about the money
There is possibly another side to this. Considering the numbers involved it seems clear that whether self-published or published Hocking has made, and is going to make, a substantial amount of money. It may have reached the point that for her the additional work she needs to do on the self-publishing front no longer seems worth it. Instead she can outsource the hassle to someone else, still reap a substantial reward and leave herself more time to do other things.

Obviously there is no "one size fits all" arrangement for these matters. Everyone has different aims and different things they enjoy doing. Those who have made a large amount of money doing something don't necessarily have to keep doing the same thing, they can try something else and play around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 8:50am
  
  Re: Its not always about the money
  Instead she can outsource the hassle to someone else
  
  Agreed - but the problem with traditional publishing deals is that they aren't really about "outsourcing" but about trading your rights for the services. That's what I think Mike was referring to when he wrote "she could do a deal for just marketing, where she doesn't necessarily have to give up so much on the other side."
  
  Publishers, like record labels, have traditionally been modeled in such a way that they are essentially hiring the artists. Now that the artists themselves are wielding more power, I think we will start seeing more deals where the artists are setting the terms and hiring the publishers/labels to provide marketing services.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Kohne, 22 Mar 2011 @ 8:49am

Simple explaination
Hocking may have simply decided that she wants a lot of money NOW. Frankly, I can see the allure of having a lot of money all at once, even if it might mean giving up some long-term royalty on this one book.

Besides, she can always do something different on the next book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 8:52am

Catch-22
Getting a big publishing contract like this is dependent upon the author already being a successful author... She would not have attracted the attention of the big publishing houses as an unpublished author, no matter how good her work might have been. After establishing a reader-base by self-publishing, she is now of interest to those same publishers that previously would not have given her the time of day... It's a sad cycle, and I'm disappointed that she is seeming to go toward "the dark side" for a quick payday, but that's her choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zegota (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:11am

Publishing is in a weird flux right now. eBooks are still not the primary means of reading for most people, and as such, a traditional publishing contract still has a lot of benefits. That said, self-publishing has some benefits too, such as keeping a much bigger chunk of the profits.

Really, what many people, TechDirt included, fail to realize is that one doesn't preclude the other, in most cases. You can publish some things with a traditional contract, and simultaneously put other things out into the eBook world. It's not mutually exclusive. I think the most successful authors are going to recognize that, and have a foot in both worlds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  I think that in the Techdirt world, it is a little difficult sometimes to admit that the other side has it's advantages. There are reasons to do either option, and much of it depends on the position of the author, their goals, and the product they are pushing.
  
  Quite simply, Hocking likely seems a new arena to push into. A publishing deal will include wide distribution, visibility, maybe book tours and the like. It could also give easy access to library placements all over the US (and wherever else the contract includes), and raise Hocking's profile outside of her current fan babe. She is expanding into a new marketplace.
  
  For Eisler, he probably feels that he has already gotten all of the benefit of these things over his last works, and wants to try addressing a different marketplace. The online buyer, the ebook reader, and so on are all different marketplaces, and he is looking to expand into a new one.
  
  The "dead tree" business is still significant, and the shift to ebooks doesn't take away from much of what the publishers do that is good: Getting access, wide distribution, and markets. As a marketing service (and as a filter for buyers of books) they serve a useful market function.
  
  The economics of each are different, the risk assumed different, and the rewards are different. Why is it hard to imagine that there is more than one type of market for books?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think that in the Techdirt world, it is a little difficult sometimes to admit that the other side has it's advantages
    
    Really? From the Eisler post:
    
    I'm still not convinced this move is right for everyone yet, but if you can handle the key functions that a publisher provides (things like editing, marketing, etc.) it can work out quite well.
    
    From this post:
    
    After all, if it did work, why would she sign such a deal? I'm not convinced that's actually true. There are plenty of reasons why she might be interested in this kind of deal, though, not all of them may be good reasons.
    
    Techdirt is the first to acknowledge that the "old model" still has plenty to offer. The point is that those incumbents need to put more focus on the things they offer that are still relevant, and less focus on the ONE thing that has undoubtedly gone away: their gatekeeper status.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - zegota (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, but the author specifically hedges that by saying "not all of them may be good reasons," which, of course, is a tautology that doesn't really say anything, but makes it clear that the author thinks that a publishing contract is generally a bad idea.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not hedging bets it's pointing out that things are changing. Some of the established roles of publishers are still important, and some of the allure of a big publishing deal is still valid. But other parts of that model are not, and that's just the point. The old players do not need to disappear, but they do need to adapt to their changing role - similarly, authors who seek 'traditional' success need to consider that goal in the light of the new options that are available to them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 11:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Marcus, really. All that Mike is doing is keeping one toe over the line on the other side of the argument, so that nobody can pin him down to a position. He is playing politics in a way that your Stephen Harper can't even imagine.
      
      "There are plenty of reasons why she might be interested in this kind of deal, though, not all of them may be good reasons."
      
      In simple terms, some of the reasons she thinks this is good are bad. That is a really ofdhanded dismissal, no? Sort of like "you aren't as ugly as you use to be". It would be miles from any sort of admission that the system has true benefits.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        AC, really. You need to stop viewing the world in black and white and start understanding the nuances of things. YOU may insist on taking a stance and being dead-set about it in every single way, but not everyone is like that and not everyone has to read everything through those lenses.
        
        The fact is that this is an industry in flux. Expressing one's views and theories while also being open to other ideas is the right thing to do. Why is taking a moderate position, where you are leaning one way but also acknowledging other aspects and keeping your options open, a bad thing in your books? To me that's smart analysis.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, if Mike was truly open, he wouldn't have spent years describing these industries as "buggy whip makers". Mike has come to a conclusion, and anyone who goes against that conclusion "has reasons, although they aren't all good reasons". It isn't being open, it's insulting by faint praise.
        
        Mike, you, me... we are all entitled to an opinion. That is never an issue.
        
        However, what Mike has done here is sort of like the basic concepts of marketing: the role model. You see it in ads every day (if you don't filter them out): The person with the horrible problem, the mop that won't mop, the mess, the stress, it's terrible. Then the positive model, the person with the "All New Moppette" who cleans everything, has time to relax with their family, and smiles while cleaning.
        
        This post is the "negative model, positive model" in perfect harmony. Eisler is the positive model going the new way with the all new, improved internet online sales direct marketing super job, turning down piles of money and sticking it to the man, while Hocking is put in the position of the fool falling for the baubles and false promises, all for a dump truck full of money, kneeling in front of her oppressors.
        
        It isn't quite as dramatic as that, but I would challenge you to re-read the piece (without your normal bias to agree with your publisher / friend) and see where it really lands.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, you can accuse me of bias all you want, but I'm sorry, I still don't agree. I think you are the one failing to read pieces closely. If you think Mike's message is that all old content companies are completely obsolete and stand no chance and might as well just give up, then you have tragically missed the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (e.g. one of the first things Mike said about Eisler was not praising him for being a trailblazer, but was in fact - as I quoted above - pointing out that his choice probably doesn't make sense for everyone)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Heh, I just remembered: even your specific example of the "buggy whip" thing is bunk. Last year Techdirt published a long piece looking at the buggy whip manufacturers who did survive, and pointing out that they did it by adapting to a changing market: taking what they were good at and finding out how it fit into the new landscape.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/1613597692.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (correction: looking at those who were very similar to buggy whip makers but adapted better, so survived where the buggy whip makers didn't)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, you are a relative newcomer here. Go back and read years of Mike and his buggy whip comments. He tends to look at any middleman company as "buggy whip" type companies, because they have to stay where they are to be in business, they have no way to change business models that leaves them with a business.
        
        In old times, companies would completely change what they do. These days, it is cheaper, more efficient, and creates less liablity to just let the old companies go and start anew.
        
        Times change, but not all companies or industries can (or need to).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 8:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, I've read plenty of posts from the Techdirt archives, and I'm still not sure I agree with you. But even if that were true, why should I pay more attention to what was written back then than I do to what is been written in the past few years? (yes, i'm not /that/ new, and I was reading as an AC for awhile before singing up)
        
        You can insist Mike is saying something he's not, and back it up with five-year-old examples, if you like. I will continue actually reading and understanding what's being said now, instead of being willfully ignorant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 1:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, really. All that Mike is doing is keeping one toe over the line on the other side of the argument, so that nobody can pin him down to a position. He is playing politics in a way that your Stephen Harper can't even imagine.
        
        I really love this new style of commenting.
        
        (1) Ignore what I actually say.
        (2) Claim I say exactly the opposite of what I actually say.
        (3) When called on this, claim that I really *meant* the opposite of what I actually say.
        
        Most people recognize that as lying and smearing. Of course, competent liars and smearers aren't proved wrong so easily. Incompetent ones, well, you're a wonderful example out in the wild. If only we could tag you and track you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't ignore what you say. I just point out ALL that you said, not just the selected words you are trying to balance your stuff on.
        
        So the claims are often the opposite of what you wish they were, because you are using weasel words and faint praise to damn the things you don't like.
        
        Thus, (3) is correct, only that it is what you meant to say, you just try to say it in a way you cannot be called out on.
        
        Example: Why are the reasons for self publishing all goo,d but for signing a publishing contract reasons are slagged as "not all of them may be good reasons"? Why point out the problems of the side you don't support, while being blissfully ignorant about the poor reasons to self-publish?
        
        What you are doing is painting a bad picture of the site you don't like, while ignoring or downplaying any flaws in your approved choice. It's not hard to see. I suspect you don't even realize it yourself.
        
        I am not lying or smearing. Obviously, you can deny it (you always do), but it is there in almost every post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What you are doing is painting a bad picture of the site you don't like, while ignoring or downplaying any flaws in your approved choice
        
        Of the SITE he doesn't like? Uh-oh, I think AC just made a Freudian slip. We aren't talking about a site. You, on the other hand, do indeed seem to be obsessed with painting a bad picture of this site while ignoring any flaws in your view.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of the SITE he doesn't like? Uh-oh, I think AC just made a Freudian slip. We aren't talking about a site. You, on the other hand, do indeed seem to be obsessed with painting a bad picture of this site while ignoring any flaws in your view
        
        Nice catch. Pretty funny though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think that in the Techdirt world, it is a little difficult sometimes to admit that the other side has it's advantages. There are reasons to do either option, and much of it depends on the position of the author, their goals, and the product they are pushing.
    
    Hmm. I said exactly that in both this post and the last one. You're agreeing with me while pretending you don't. So odd.
    
    It helps to read posts before responding.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike, as Zegota points out, you tend to make it clear where you stand, and add a few words on the other side to attempt to look like you are being balanced.
      
      I read your post carefully. Perhaps you want to re-read your own posts and see how it might be read with someone who doesn't buy into your business models?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This determined contrarianism against all fact and reality gets so wearisome.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 1:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To be fair, it's all they have left, really.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:46am
  
  Re:
  That rings true to me. She just has to be careful is all. Whether benign or not, no contract should be signed without some scrutiny.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tuna, 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:14am

Hocking may have hit the sales limit on her already written ebooks and is now looking for another way to make money on her existing works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 12:00pm

Maybe the publisher is buying her out to sit on her works, thereby decreasing the amount of competition and trying another angle to control the ebook market.

Maybe they will put her in an endless loop of editing and rewrites until the contract is up and they've paid her the minimum. Then finally release an ebook for $10.99 that none of her fans will ever buy because they are used to buying her books for 99 cents each.

She's no longer in demand because her fans moved on to the next ebook author that didn't sign with a publisher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rochrist (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re:
  Um...the publishing house is purchasing publishing rights to four specific written works of hers, said purchase may or may not include foreign language rights, ebooks, etc, that's part of negotiation and its also what an agent is for. I'm quite sure that at this point she has very competent representation. Additionally, the publishers is buying /these/ works. Not other works that she may produce. She could easily write a book to self-publish in between each of those four books she's contracted for, as long as she doesn't fail to live up to her end of the contract.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jsf (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:32am

It always amazes me that everyone assumes they know the details of a contract, without ever having seen it and before it is even signed. For all any of us know she could have negotiated any number of concessions from the potential publisher. She may be keeping certain rights, such as Cory Doctorow's ability to put his stuff online for free, or she may have kept the ebook portion for herself, or negotiated a larger percentage or a lower price point. Who knows.

Also Eisler turned to self publishing because the numbers came out better then half a million up front. What if he was offered one million? Would the equation have leaned the other way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carolyn Jewel, 23 Mar 2011 @ 12:32pm

They're Both Right
Kassia Krozser over at Booksquare (http://booksquare.com/a-tale-of-two-authors/#more-3824) has a fairly thorough analysis of Eisler vs. Hocking and lists some compelling reasons for their respective decisions. The quick take away is that they're both right.

In the case of Hocking, what she doesn't have right now is access to the foreign rights markets (translations). There are a lot of authors who make as much or more from their work in translation than they do with the English language version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]