Comments on: Amazon Author Blogs

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:56:12 +0000

Oh, I agree that a world where Orson Welles didn’t have to do commercials to pay the bills would probably be a better one, at least on the artistic level, than the current model. But while I don’t think this is a trivial issue, it would appear that we set the bar for trust quite differently. To pick one example: you criticize “Amazon’s ‘anything goes’ principle, with its links just under ‘Meg Wolitzer’s Amazon Blog’ going directly to ‘buy this book’ links.” But that’s no different, really, than the links to my book on my blog’s home page; the only reason I don’t link directly to a bookstore is to more tightly control the pitch. (Well, that and I can link to three bookstores.) For that matter, I’m constantly linking to books with their Powell’s links, as any number of bookbloggers do, within editorial content, and though there’s a notification of that affiliation somewhere on the site, it doesn’t accompany EVERY instance of linkage. And yet my venue remains unsuspect in your eyes (at least I hope it does), even though the only substantial differences between my blog and Wolitzer’s are our host servers and the specific thrust of our opinions.

Would it be nice if Wolitzer had her own blog on her own website? Sure. But maybe she doesn’t want to bother with the technical details, and if Amazon’s willing to host one for her, I don’t see any particular reason not to take the opportunity, because “what other people will think about it” doesn’t strike me as a nullifying consideration. She, and Scalzi, and all the other Amazon blogging authors, can’t control what everyone thinks of their actions, and if they fail to live up to some readers’ ideals, well, whose ideals should we set as the gold standard for acceptable blogging?

By: DrMabuse

DrMabuse — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:26:35 +0000

Ron: I believe the noun form is “misconstruing.” The word “misconstruction” seems to me as blasphemous as “irregardless.” But therein lies the rub, they very disagreement we’re having here: To what extent should one codify one’s writing, both in content and in context. And it seems to me that if one is to write with clean hands and composure, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the writing is an entirely separate entity from any advertising in place to support it. Writing may be a mercenary act, and indeed should be, but this doesn’t mean that one cannot take steps to ensure that it is devoid of product placement, that the content is reasonably separate from the advertising, and that the venue itself is not suspect or contrary to the interests that motivate an author’s voice. (Indeed, DFW’s “Consider the Lobster” essay, which appeared in Gourmet magazine, seems to me an interesting case of how a mesage, contrary to the periodical’s or the advertisers’ intent, can in fact remain intact and distinct and still allow the twain to remain unsullied.)

Paddy Chayefsky certainly understood this. To use your example, did, for example, Rod Steiger hawk Goodyear tires to his mother during the course of the dramatic presentation? Of course not. There were natural pauses between drama and advertising, clear indicators to preserve the integrity of the production and the faithfulness of the message.

The nice thing about blogs and the Web is that it is a low-cost form that empowers an author to maintain a certain credibility of voice. An author can, without too much effort, ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the thoughts she offers and the potential tainting (or perception of such) of the intent. If this seems like a trivial issue to you (and that is an impression I’m getting), then it’s clear to me that we have widely differing views of trust and ethics. For me, trust is far more important than any promotional visibility, yet I believe the two can co-exist in clearly delinated realms. Certainly that’s been the case for years already. What’s precisely wrong with that model? It seems too easy a betrayal to do otherwise. I think a little something of an artist dies when we see a prodigious talent like Orson Welles hawking Gallo wine or Meg Wolitzer intertextualizing with Amazon or even a so-called “talk show” or “news program” devoted to nothing less than unquestioning plugging and shameless sycophancy.

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:47:25 +0000

Apologies for any possible misconstruction (is that the form? well, it is now) of your argument, although your effort to distinguish Wolitzer’s project from Iweala’s smacks to me more of Voltaire’s distinction between philosophers and perverts. And “no less invalid an argument than the concerns raised earlier in the year over the Target-sponsored New Yorker” is, to me, pretty invalid; I never quite accepted the big fuss about that issue then and I still don’t. The lines between the content and the ads seemed pretty obvious to me. It’s like suggesting Marty wasn’t a good television drama because it was part of “Goodyear Playhouse,” with the sponsor’s name right there in the title…YMMV, of course, and it doesn’t mean I don’t still love you.

Unless the Amazon authors are getting paid, which I don’t believe is happening, this isn’t a “Pepsi Blue” scenario–heck, for that matter, since they’re already openly blogging on a commercial site, there’s no way it could be “Pepsi Blue,” which is all about covering your tracks. I don’t see any ethical dilemma here, since I don’t believe there needs to be so sharp a distinction between “Wolitzer the author” and “Wolitzer the book merchant.” (Or Scalzi, or whoever…) Unless you’re extremely lucky, or independently wealthy to begin with, if you’re an author, you’re a book merchant by default. I don’t want to invoke Johnson’s famous dictum, but it’s not entirely inappropriate.

Basically, if you think Wolitzer’s blog is toothless, that’s a perfectly understandable (albeit debatable) opinion, but I don’t see that it necessarily extends to a full indictment of explicitly sponsored blogging.

By: Abigail

Abigail — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:33:52 +0000

Plenty of bloggers place ads on their blogs, or sell items on CafePress, or use their blogs to advertise their books or other products (sometimes through Amazon Associates). I agree with Beth – until we see evidence that the Amazon blogs are actually toothless, it seems harsh to dismiss them simply for being backed by a commercial venture.

By: DrMabuse

DrMabuse — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:41:56 +0000

Beth: The difference is that Six Apart is not draped across a Typepad blog, nor are there various entreaties for the reader to buy a Typepad subscription or a Movable Type license. The conscious decision by Wolitzer, et al. to blog under the Amazon moniker thus suggests a blurring of the fine line between advertising and editorial.

By: Beth Quittman

Beth Quittman — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:31:13 +0000

Is there really much difference between an author blog hosted on Amazon and an author blog hosted at typepad? Particularly when blogs are available free everywhere, the threat of ‘offending the big boyds upstairs’ seems rather toothless.