There are a gazillion things I could/should be doing, but as we settle into our new office, our first office office, a little bit of reflection...
When I started JABberwocky almost 18 years ago, the business plan wasn't much. A piece of memo paper where I had determined I'd need around $24-25K in gross commission revenue to break even, that I was sure of having at least $12K the first year, and that I would surely sell another book or two over the next year. It wasn't a get rich quick scheme, that's for sure! As things turned out, I did somewhat better than break even, with total commission revenue in the low 30Ks. What I didn't realize, and I don't even know if I'd have started the agency if I had realized it, was that my revenue wouldn't grow for a long time. It was five years before gross commission revenue moved from the low 30Ks to the mid 30Ks, five years before I finally started to have a smidgen of breathing room.
On the other hand, I don't know if I'd have predicted that once things started to grow they would pretty much keep growing.
That growth -- well, you're in this business, you certainly dream of representing a big bestselling author or two and making a difference for an author, and somehow I've come to do just that! But I'm not proud of that, per se. Rather, I'm proud that I've managed to do it without compromising my idea of how to build and run the business. I didn't want to be an empire builder, I didn't want to accumulate clients or employees for the sake of accumulating them, I didn't want to just be around because there was money to be had. I wanted to be sure that we were working as hard as we could every day to make each client as successful as we could get each client to be.
Oh, there's luck aplenty in all of this, things would be different if Alan Ball hadn't stumbled across Dead Until Dark in a Barnes &; Noble while waiting for a dentist appointment. But it isn't just luck, it's also a lot of hard work to build my capabilities and those of the business, to be a literary agency capable of doing the job for big bestselling authors. In how we approach editors and publishers when the wind is behind our sails, in the kind of IT and infrastructure we have in the office, little ways and big ones. Big authors can open doors, they can also leave for bigger agents, I think we've managed to become bigger agents while still recognizing that we have to work to make authors big, each in their own way.
So I'll confess, one of the first days leaving the new office, I got a little teary-eyed at the fact that I'd managed to build a business from a modestly defined business plan on a memo sheet to a much much larger business that now had its own real office with room to have more employees to do more good things for a client list that isn't all that much bigger than it was five or ten years ago
The project hasn't been a solo effort, of course. This is my blog, but the business isn't just me. It's Eddie, it's Jessie, it's our clients.
I don't usually like to do posts like this, it seems immodest, but then again, facts are facts and the past few years have been pretty amazing.
It's also a fact that the growth of the agency got a little bit ahead of me the past six months or so. Last summer, I had actual pleasure reading time, it seemed like I'd finally managed to earn a little leisure for myself, a little time to smell the roses and all. Then we get to the holidays in 2011, and there's no let-up. We get to January 2012, and there's still no let-up.
After I pulled the trigger on an office hunt, I realized as things marched along that we really really needed an office ASAP and that for all the money we'd spend in the office every day we remained in the home office environment was costing us money. This isn't the way to do an office hunt, you want to be the person who's willing to walk, and here, when we had found the size of office we needed in a location we liked we weren't really wanting to say no and have to go for a second choice location or another few weeks or months of looking.
Hence, we need to get settled in the office even as we're still awfully busy, even though we're about as functional now as before the move being 100% where we want will take longer. Why didn't I see this coming, so we could have been looking and set and ready a little bit before instead of a little bit after?
But I think we've got the blueprint for what we need to do. We've identified the additional furniture the larger office requires, and it's coming. We have the server, and we'll get that set up so we have a more scalable more efficient networking set-up with potential for remote access.
Most importantly, the cavalry is scheduled to arrive in a week-and-a-half, as we add another full-time staff member. More to come on that, let's just say it's exhilarating and frightening for me, I'm going to have to delegate some things I hate to delegate, but I think I'll be delegating them to an gifted and talented person who is capable of doing great things for us and for our clients. But there's a lot to catch up on to feel 100% totally back in the zone the way I feel we were just last summer.
[And if you've read this post, you might have an inkling why the blog hasn't been very active in recent months, if all goes well maybe as we get into July and August more blogging time will emerge.]
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
quick rants
Trying to order something from Ikea, it only tells me after I've entered by billing and delivery addresses and my e-mail that the item I want isn't in stock and can't actually be ordered. Yeah, right.
Adobe Flash Player sends out notices around every two days that they have a new version they need for you to install. All of them do the exact same thing, so you can never tell one update from the rest, it's like groundhog day and you just install Flash Player over and over again every single day. They tell you, no need to restart in order to install the update. But like a mini-Ikea, they only tell you when you're midway through the update "oh, by the way, be sure to close all the programs that might be using Flash." Wouldn't it be better for them to tell you at the start of the process?
I've had a lot of good karma with the NY Times bestseller list, with books that have placed several spots higher than the Nielsen Bookscan ranking of actual recorded sales. And I've said to myself on some of them "gee, I'd hate to be the agent who has to explain to author why their book is showing up six spots lower on the Times list than the actual sales rankings say it should maybe be. Well, all that karma just evened out in spades. The Lost Fleet: Beyond the Frontier: Invincible by Jack Campbell shows up at #21 on the Bookscan list, with sales 600 to 1000 copies above the number you usually need in a given week to make the extended NY Times bestseller list, which has 35 places. The sales are 500 copies ahead of the #22 book on Bookscan. The sales are 1000+ copies ahead of the #35 book on the Bookscan list. And yet the NY Times can't find a way to place the book at #21, or #31, or anywhere in the top 35. Now, that's just bullshit. There's no way you can place titles on your list and manage to downgrade a #21 bestseller 15 places below 15 books that have sold hundreds of copies less. Let's just say I'll start to take an even more jaundiced view of the NY Times rankings moving forward.
Adobe Flash Player sends out notices around every two days that they have a new version they need for you to install. All of them do the exact same thing, so you can never tell one update from the rest, it's like groundhog day and you just install Flash Player over and over again every single day. They tell you, no need to restart in order to install the update. But like a mini-Ikea, they only tell you when you're midway through the update "oh, by the way, be sure to close all the programs that might be using Flash." Wouldn't it be better for them to tell you at the start of the process?
I've had a lot of good karma with the NY Times bestseller list, with books that have placed several spots higher than the Nielsen Bookscan ranking of actual recorded sales. And I've said to myself on some of them "gee, I'd hate to be the agent who has to explain to author why their book is showing up six spots lower on the Times list than the actual sales rankings say it should maybe be. Well, all that karma just evened out in spades. The Lost Fleet: Beyond the Frontier: Invincible by Jack Campbell shows up at #21 on the Bookscan list, with sales 600 to 1000 copies above the number you usually need in a given week to make the extended NY Times bestseller list, which has 35 places. The sales are 500 copies ahead of the #22 book on Bookscan. The sales are 1000+ copies ahead of the #35 book on the Bookscan list. And yet the NY Times can't find a way to place the book at #21, or #31, or anywhere in the top 35. Now, that's just bullshit. There's no way you can place titles on your list and manage to downgrade a #21 bestseller 15 places below 15 books that have sold hundreds of copies less. Let's just say I'll start to take an even more jaundiced view of the NY Times rankings moving forward.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Margin of Error
I thought I'd share with the world an e-mail I sent to the Public Advocate at the NY Times regarding margins of error in polling...
Dear Mr. Brisbane:
I am getting really tired of articles, like ones earlier this week with a paragraphs pasted below my signature block, that consistently mis-represent the meaning of the margin of error in polling. Every single time a poll shows candidates apart, even in the mid to high single digits, the articles imply that the race is tied, within the margin of error. But that's only half true. The margin of error can just as easily go the other way. Scott Walker could be five points either ahead or behind Tom Barrett in Wisconsin. He could have been tied with Kathleen Falk or could actually have had a landslide twelve point lead over Kathleen Falk. In Virginia, President Obama could be in a very close dead heat with Governor Romney because he has a seven point lead in a poll with a four percent margin of error or he could be ahead of Governor Romney by almost fifteen points.
I'm not taking sides to say in any of these cases which way the margin of error wind is actually blowing, what I am saying is that the NY Times is distorting the meaning of the term when it implies in every single instance when it uses a margin of error in polling that the margin will always and only serve only to narrow the gap between two candidates or two sides in an opinion poll and will never extend it. I realize that the approach the Times is taking is the best "cover your ass" approach, there will be a lot more complaints about the inaccuracy of polling if you say someone is up by six points and ends up winning or losing by one point than if they ended up winning by twelve, but it's not the right way to give the public a clear and proper understanding of how to evaluate polling for themselves. And more to the point, it's just not true.
Joshua Bilmes
That advantage, however, was less apparent in a poll conducted last month by Marquette University Law School that showed Mr. Walker and Mr. Barrett essentially tied in a general election matchup. Mr. Walker led Ms. Falk 49 percent to 43 percent among likely voters, a six-point advantage that is within the poll’s margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points on each candidate.
---------------------
Barack Obama won Virginia four years ago, the first time a Democrat had won the state in more than 40 years. This year, it looks like Mr. Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, may have a competitive contest for the state’s 13 electoral votes.
Mr. Obama is backed by 51 percent of voters surveyed by The Washington Post from Saturday to Wednesday, and Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is the choice of 44 percent. Mr. Obama’s seven percentage-point advantage is within the poll’s four percentage-point margin of sampling error for each candidate.
Dear Mr. Brisbane:
I am getting really tired of articles, like ones earlier this week with a paragraphs pasted below my signature block, that consistently mis-represent the meaning of the margin of error in polling. Every single time a poll shows candidates apart, even in the mid to high single digits, the articles imply that the race is tied, within the margin of error. But that's only half true. The margin of error can just as easily go the other way. Scott Walker could be five points either ahead or behind Tom Barrett in Wisconsin. He could have been tied with Kathleen Falk or could actually have had a landslide twelve point lead over Kathleen Falk. In Virginia, President Obama could be in a very close dead heat with Governor Romney because he has a seven point lead in a poll with a four percent margin of error or he could be ahead of Governor Romney by almost fifteen points.
I'm not taking sides to say in any of these cases which way the margin of error wind is actually blowing, what I am saying is that the NY Times is distorting the meaning of the term when it implies in every single instance when it uses a margin of error in polling that the margin will always and only serve only to narrow the gap between two candidates or two sides in an opinion poll and will never extend it. I realize that the approach the Times is taking is the best "cover your ass" approach, there will be a lot more complaints about the inaccuracy of polling if you say someone is up by six points and ends up winning or losing by one point than if they ended up winning by twelve, but it's not the right way to give the public a clear and proper understanding of how to evaluate polling for themselves. And more to the point, it's just not true.
Joshua Bilmes
That advantage, however, was less apparent in a poll conducted last month by Marquette University Law School that showed Mr. Walker and Mr. Barrett essentially tied in a general election matchup. Mr. Walker led Ms. Falk 49 percent to 43 percent among likely voters, a six-point advantage that is within the poll’s margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points on each candidate.
---------------------
Barack Obama won Virginia four years ago, the first time a Democrat had won the state in more than 40 years. This year, it looks like Mr. Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, may have a competitive contest for the state’s 13 electoral votes.
Mr. Obama is backed by 51 percent of voters surveyed by The Washington Post from Saturday to Wednesday, and Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is the choice of 44 percent. Mr. Obama’s seven percentage-point advantage is within the poll’s four percentage-point margin of sampling error for each candidate.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Agency E-books, the Harper statement
I hope to blog a bit more extensively about the anti-trust case on e-book pricing.
In the meantime, here is a vapid press release that just arrived from HarperCollins.
It can be summed up as "our behavior was wonderful and delightful for everyone, so we decided to settle instead of defending it."
Erin Crum Vice President, Corporate Communications HarperCollins Publishers (212) 207-7223 Erin.Crum@harpercollins.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE HarperCollins Publishers Settles e-Book Pricing Dispute with the Department of Justice
New York, NY (April 11, 2012) — HarperCollins Publishers today announced that it has reached an agreement with the United States Department of Justice to end its investigation into HarperCollins’ contracts for the distribution of e-books. HarperCollins did not violate any anti- trust laws and will comply with its obligations under the agreement. HarperCollins’ business terms and policies have been, and continue to be, designed to give readers the greatest choice of formats, features, value, platforms and partners – for both print and digital.
After HarperCollins adopted the agency model in 2010, the e-book market exploded, giving consumers more choices of devices, formats and prices that would never have existed but for the agency model. Some examples include:
The iBookstore, which offers iTunes customers a storefront to buy HarperCollins’ books The launch of Barnes & Noble's NOOK Book Store, which grew faster than any other
platform for HarperCollins’ titles over the last two years
Prices for dedicated e-readers declined from almost $400 to under $100, and competition exploded in the device market, making the e-book reading experience less expensive
Dynamic pricing of HarperCollins’ e-books, including some titles priced under $2, was introduced to maximize the sales and reach of our authors and their books
The introduction of color tablets with native e-book stores led by Apple and Barnes & Noble, which are now the fastest selling devices for e-book consumers
The introduction and rapid development of enhanced e-books with audio, video and interactivity, which are a fast-growing digital format for HarperCollins
Contact:
News
HarperCollins faced legal challenges on five separate fronts, including the DOJ investigation which was resolved today. The e-book market has grown over the last two years from a small e- ink market, dominated by one platform, to a $1B market with several competing platforms. HarperCollins made a business decision to settle the DOJ investigation in order to end a potentially protracted legal battle.
In the meantime, here is a vapid press release that just arrived from HarperCollins.
It can be summed up as "our behavior was wonderful and delightful for everyone, so we decided to settle instead of defending it."
Erin Crum Vice President, Corporate Communications HarperCollins Publishers (212) 207-7223 Erin.Crum@harpercollins.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE HarperCollins Publishers Settles e-Book Pricing Dispute with the Department of Justice
New York, NY (April 11, 2012) — HarperCollins Publishers today announced that it has reached an agreement with the United States Department of Justice to end its investigation into HarperCollins’ contracts for the distribution of e-books. HarperCollins did not violate any anti- trust laws and will comply with its obligations under the agreement. HarperCollins’ business terms and policies have been, and continue to be, designed to give readers the greatest choice of formats, features, value, platforms and partners – for both print and digital.
After HarperCollins adopted the agency model in 2010, the e-book market exploded, giving consumers more choices of devices, formats and prices that would never have existed but for the agency model. Some examples include:
The iBookstore, which offers iTunes customers a storefront to buy HarperCollins’ books The launch of Barnes & Noble's NOOK Book Store, which grew faster than any other
platform for HarperCollins’ titles over the last two years
Prices for dedicated e-readers declined from almost $400 to under $100, and competition exploded in the device market, making the e-book reading experience less expensive
Dynamic pricing of HarperCollins’ e-books, including some titles priced under $2, was introduced to maximize the sales and reach of our authors and their books
The introduction of color tablets with native e-book stores led by Apple and Barnes & Noble, which are now the fastest selling devices for e-book consumers
The introduction and rapid development of enhanced e-books with audio, video and interactivity, which are a fast-growing digital format for HarperCollins
Contact:
News
HarperCollins faced legal challenges on five separate fronts, including the DOJ investigation which was resolved today. The e-book market has grown over the last two years from a small e- ink market, dominated by one platform, to a $1B market with several competing platforms. HarperCollins made a business decision to settle the DOJ investigation in order to end a potentially protracted legal battle.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Goon
I just had to do a quick write-up on the movie Goon.
It's based on the biographical Goon: The True Story of an Unlikely Journey into Minor League Hockey,” by Doug Smith and Adam Frattasio. It opened on a couple screens in NYC this weekend. I took note of it after it got a kind review in this week's Village Voice, followed by another in Friday's New York Times.
It's better and worse than Slap Shot, which is pretty good praise. Slap Shot had a star turn from Paul Newman but otherwise not much else going on in the cast. Goon has Liev Schreiber in a supporting role, stars Seann William Scott from the American Pie movies and others, it just has a little more going on when you take your eye off the brightest light. It's more violent than Slap Shot but not as profane.
Considering that I don't think fighting is integral to the game of hockey, I should look down on the film, but it does just enough to show that the violence is in fact violence and fills its moments with just enough charm and offbeat wit that it's hard to resist.
Example: the big turning point in the relationship between the enforcer and the player who's still trying to recover from a big hit comes when the enforcer starts referencing ET, "the light in my chest needs the light in your chest." If you can't appreciate the wit of that line in the context of a movie about a hockey enforcer, don't look for this on video. If you can, please, yes, do.
And the movie's low budget, they could probably have spent a little more time and money in the ADR/dubbing booth. But I'd swear that there's a place when a character who's crying is asked "did you just see Rudy," which again is just the strangest and most delightfully off little piece of dialogue to hide away in a film.
I have a feeling this won't be playing at a theatre near you, you'll need to keep an eye out for a video release of some sort, and can self-identify if you should.
I saw this on the biggest screen at the City Cinemas Village East, which is in an old live stage theatre known primarily as a one time Yiddush stage house. A lot of the detailing is still intact, I smile just being in the auditorium, which doesn't happen very often. Paid full price to see it on this screen instead of using a Gold Experience ticket at the AMC Empire.
Finally, I feel like I'm living a movie. Both Friday and Saturday walking around Manhattan I heard ladies having a serious shouting match with a boyfriend (I think) on their cell phones, and then on the subway ride home from this movie there was somebody on the train with a sign board with a grudge against hindus that he had to share. In a movie, these things would be a quick montage warning us of some apocalyptic kind of something. Don't say you weren't warned.
It's based on the biographical Goon: The True Story of an Unlikely Journey into Minor League Hockey,” by Doug Smith and Adam Frattasio. It opened on a couple screens in NYC this weekend. I took note of it after it got a kind review in this week's Village Voice, followed by another in Friday's New York Times.
It's better and worse than Slap Shot, which is pretty good praise. Slap Shot had a star turn from Paul Newman but otherwise not much else going on in the cast. Goon has Liev Schreiber in a supporting role, stars Seann William Scott from the American Pie movies and others, it just has a little more going on when you take your eye off the brightest light. It's more violent than Slap Shot but not as profane.
Considering that I don't think fighting is integral to the game of hockey, I should look down on the film, but it does just enough to show that the violence is in fact violence and fills its moments with just enough charm and offbeat wit that it's hard to resist.
Example: the big turning point in the relationship between the enforcer and the player who's still trying to recover from a big hit comes when the enforcer starts referencing ET, "the light in my chest needs the light in your chest." If you can't appreciate the wit of that line in the context of a movie about a hockey enforcer, don't look for this on video. If you can, please, yes, do.
And the movie's low budget, they could probably have spent a little more time and money in the ADR/dubbing booth. But I'd swear that there's a place when a character who's crying is asked "did you just see Rudy," which again is just the strangest and most delightfully off little piece of dialogue to hide away in a film.
I have a feeling this won't be playing at a theatre near you, you'll need to keep an eye out for a video release of some sort, and can self-identify if you should.
I saw this on the biggest screen at the City Cinemas Village East, which is in an old live stage theatre known primarily as a one time Yiddush stage house. A lot of the detailing is still intact, I smile just being in the auditorium, which doesn't happen very often. Paid full price to see it on this screen instead of using a Gold Experience ticket at the AMC Empire.
Finally, I feel like I'm living a movie. Both Friday and Saturday walking around Manhattan I heard ladies having a serious shouting match with a boyfriend (I think) on their cell phones, and then on the subway ride home from this movie there was somebody on the train with a sign board with a grudge against hindus that he had to share. In a movie, these things would be a quick montage warning us of some apocalyptic kind of something. Don't say you weren't warned.
Insurance Mandates
"Paul D. Clement, representing Florida and 25 other states objecting to the health care law, responded that 'it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not.'"
Quoted in a Washington Post article on Thursday on the final day of Supreme Court arguments about Obamacare.
“I’m in good shape, I don’t eat meat, I don’t drink excessively, I’ve never smoked,” said Mr. Lodor, 53, who estimates he would have to spend at least $1,200 a month to cover himself and his college-age daughter. “The last thing I’m going to do is not pay my rent because I have to pay for some state-mandated health coverage that I don’t think I need.”
Wayne Lodor, one of the (now only) 2% of Massachusets residents who do not have insurance under Romneycare, quoted in Wednesday's NY Times.
I need to hire Paul D. Clement.
New York State forces JABberwocky to buy Workmen's Compensation insurance for its employees.
New York State forces JABberwocky to buy Disability Insurance for its employees.
If I owned a car, New York State would force me to have insurance for my car.
My LIC apartment building forces me to have insurance with a specified liability coverage (if my washing machine floods the downstairs neighbor, the building wants to be sure I get to fix up my downstairs neighbor's apartment). My apartment building also required that my contractors and my movers had insurance.
State Form forced me to buy a business policy to wrap around my homeowner policy for my older apartment because they decreed the business was too big to be covered by a home office rider on the homeowner policy.
A prospective landlord for the JABberwocky office insists I show certificates for my workmen's comp policy and my business liability policy, which I will have to upgrade to have a higher liability limit in order to suit the landlord, costing me money.
I am annoyed that Paul D. Clement can make the most outrageous statement about liberty and insurance, and that there are justices on the Supreme Court who think he's living anywhere close to the real world, where I am made constantly to have insurance policies whether I want them or not -- and in some instances made to do so by state actors as opposed to private companies or citizens that have more freedom to require things of one another as part of their dealings.
And I'm sure Mr. Lodor takes the most wonderfully good care of himself, but is he willing to sign some kind of binding statement that if he falls off a ladder or has a bagel cutting accident in the coming days or weeks that he will 100% totally agree to pay for his emergency room care, at whatever inflated rates the hospital will give him vs. what they've negotiated with an insurance company, and that if for some reason he can't pay he won't max out and then bankrupt out of his credit card bills or do anything else at all that will force the rest of us to pay to heal his broken ankle or severed thumb? And that the same will apply if his daughter is standing on a baseball field, gets plunked by an errant throw that was supposed to go to the manager on the pitching mound, and gets a concussion (this just recently happened to one of my nephews, just as an aside I was quite impressed with the seriousness with which everyone was concerned about this, which is sea change for good from five or ten years ago). Mr. Lodor, as one of the 2% in Massachusets without insurance, should be every bit as ostracized by the Occupiers and by all the rest of us as the 1%.
Mind you, I agree that Mr. Lodor shouldn't have to pay so much money for his insurance, but Obamacare is the best chance we've got at getting those costs down, at least so long as we're going to remain tethered to our current health care system. I am happy to debate with anyone all of the so-called market-based solutions to health care, which are generally as untethered from reality as Paul D. Clement's statement that forced insurance is tyranny.
And if the Court accepts Paul Clement's argument, how do they chop down the mandate in Obamacare in a way that still guarantees Workmen's Compensation insurance for my employees, or mandatory auto insurance for car-owners, or a gazillion other things that we are required to do in the public sphere to protect one another? Under classic libertarianism, we wouldn't have a lot of these things, and I can respect the consistently principled classic libertarian even if I don't always agree, but the consistently principled classic libertarian is a rare bird.
Many of you reading my blog are fans of sf/fantasy. Every so often we in the sf/fantasy community are called upon to make donations to the SFWA Emergency Medical Fund or privately to help some writer who's met up with illness. I want to live in a place where we don't keep having to do that, because it's understood by everyone that the health and well-being of our citizenry is a shared obligation we all have to one another.
If that would happen, we wouldn't need a law that requires people to buy broccoli.
Public mores can change over time. The reaction to my nephew's concussion is an example of that.
Another example, in my time on Earth attitudes have changed a lot toward drunk driving. In the 1960s, who would have envisioned that the movie "Say Anything" would have a keymaster to model proper hosting of a teen alcohol bash. The term designated driver came to the US only in the late 1980s.
I could see a lot of good coming to the US not through forced legislation but through an understanding of the shared common good if we understood that health care was a shared common obligation of the citizenry. This in turn can lead to a long discussion of externalities and market costs, but we can have that discussion another day.
Quoted in a Washington Post article on Thursday on the final day of Supreme Court arguments about Obamacare.
“I’m in good shape, I don’t eat meat, I don’t drink excessively, I’ve never smoked,” said Mr. Lodor, 53, who estimates he would have to spend at least $1,200 a month to cover himself and his college-age daughter. “The last thing I’m going to do is not pay my rent because I have to pay for some state-mandated health coverage that I don’t think I need.”
Wayne Lodor, one of the (now only) 2% of Massachusets residents who do not have insurance under Romneycare, quoted in Wednesday's NY Times.
I need to hire Paul D. Clement.
New York State forces JABberwocky to buy Workmen's Compensation insurance for its employees.
New York State forces JABberwocky to buy Disability Insurance for its employees.
If I owned a car, New York State would force me to have insurance for my car.
My LIC apartment building forces me to have insurance with a specified liability coverage (if my washing machine floods the downstairs neighbor, the building wants to be sure I get to fix up my downstairs neighbor's apartment). My apartment building also required that my contractors and my movers had insurance.
State Form forced me to buy a business policy to wrap around my homeowner policy for my older apartment because they decreed the business was too big to be covered by a home office rider on the homeowner policy.
A prospective landlord for the JABberwocky office insists I show certificates for my workmen's comp policy and my business liability policy, which I will have to upgrade to have a higher liability limit in order to suit the landlord, costing me money.
I am annoyed that Paul D. Clement can make the most outrageous statement about liberty and insurance, and that there are justices on the Supreme Court who think he's living anywhere close to the real world, where I am made constantly to have insurance policies whether I want them or not -- and in some instances made to do so by state actors as opposed to private companies or citizens that have more freedom to require things of one another as part of their dealings.
And I'm sure Mr. Lodor takes the most wonderfully good care of himself, but is he willing to sign some kind of binding statement that if he falls off a ladder or has a bagel cutting accident in the coming days or weeks that he will 100% totally agree to pay for his emergency room care, at whatever inflated rates the hospital will give him vs. what they've negotiated with an insurance company, and that if for some reason he can't pay he won't max out and then bankrupt out of his credit card bills or do anything else at all that will force the rest of us to pay to heal his broken ankle or severed thumb? And that the same will apply if his daughter is standing on a baseball field, gets plunked by an errant throw that was supposed to go to the manager on the pitching mound, and gets a concussion (this just recently happened to one of my nephews, just as an aside I was quite impressed with the seriousness with which everyone was concerned about this, which is sea change for good from five or ten years ago). Mr. Lodor, as one of the 2% in Massachusets without insurance, should be every bit as ostracized by the Occupiers and by all the rest of us as the 1%.
Mind you, I agree that Mr. Lodor shouldn't have to pay so much money for his insurance, but Obamacare is the best chance we've got at getting those costs down, at least so long as we're going to remain tethered to our current health care system. I am happy to debate with anyone all of the so-called market-based solutions to health care, which are generally as untethered from reality as Paul D. Clement's statement that forced insurance is tyranny.
And if the Court accepts Paul Clement's argument, how do they chop down the mandate in Obamacare in a way that still guarantees Workmen's Compensation insurance for my employees, or mandatory auto insurance for car-owners, or a gazillion other things that we are required to do in the public sphere to protect one another? Under classic libertarianism, we wouldn't have a lot of these things, and I can respect the consistently principled classic libertarian even if I don't always agree, but the consistently principled classic libertarian is a rare bird.
Many of you reading my blog are fans of sf/fantasy. Every so often we in the sf/fantasy community are called upon to make donations to the SFWA Emergency Medical Fund or privately to help some writer who's met up with illness. I want to live in a place where we don't keep having to do that, because it's understood by everyone that the health and well-being of our citizenry is a shared obligation we all have to one another.
If that would happen, we wouldn't need a law that requires people to buy broccoli.
Public mores can change over time. The reaction to my nephew's concussion is an example of that.
Another example, in my time on Earth attitudes have changed a lot toward drunk driving. In the 1960s, who would have envisioned that the movie "Say Anything" would have a keymaster to model proper hosting of a teen alcohol bash. The term designated driver came to the US only in the late 1980s.
I could see a lot of good coming to the US not through forced legislation but through an understanding of the shared common good if we understood that health care was a shared common obligation of the citizenry. This in turn can lead to a long discussion of externalities and market costs, but we can have that discussion another day.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Book of Mormon
Typically, when there's some hot new Broadway show where you need to buy tickets way far in advance and there are no discounts and etc., I wait. And wait, and wait, and wait. I live in New York City. Eventually in five years of fifteen years demand will drop. Tickets will be on TKTS. If I die before that happens -- well, if I'm dead, the fact that I missed a Broadway show will be the least of my worries. And it's New York, it's Broadway, you see the 12th replacement cast in the 9th year of the run, and odds are you're still going to see some pretty good stuff, The Phantom of the Opera is still chugging along well after Michael Crawford, you know.
Charlaine Harris was in town this week to do a special pre-signing of books for select bookstore accounts. She wanted to see Jersey Boys and The Book of Mormon. A good agent would happily choose to take the client to Jersey Boys, cheaper tickets, and let the publisher take to The Book of Mormon, expensive tickets. I guess I'm not a good agent. I'd already seen Jersey Boys, which is fantastic and I'd recommend it to anyone, but I'd seen it. I've been dying to see The Book of Mormon. And the availability update on the website suggested there might still be premium seats for the week in question. So I was forced -- forced, I say, forced !! -- to go get very nice seats to see this show I'd been dying to see. Sometimes, it's a hard life being a literary agent.
It was worth every penny.
The Book of Mormon is one of the best musicals I've ever seen, likely one of the best I will ever see.
Even with Elder Price being played by the understudy.
There is one flaw, if you will. The songs are excellent, lively, melodic, tuneful, all of that, but not anything like Tomorrow from Annie or Sunrise Sunset from Fiddler that will linger in the mind for 62.92 years after you've seen the show. You can bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow I will be able to hum "I Believe" to myself, to the extent of humming those two words, I will not be able to go deep into the verses through to the cobwebs and the sorrow.
No, two flaws. One number takes place in the departure lounge of the airport with the Elders on their way to their mission in Uganda, the set has the departure board at the gate listing the flight as bound for Uganda. I kept looking at that and thinking in any real airport I've ever been to the plane would be going to a particular city in Uganda, not to the country. It is hard for me to believe that the creators of the show are worried that nobody from Gulu or Jinja will want to come see the show if that sign had properly read "Kampala, Uganda" instead of just saying Uganda. I think we should start a petition to get that distraction changed.
I can't address the show from a Mormon perspective. If you want to read up on that, you can find a thorough and interesting annotation on "I Believe" from our client Bryce Moore by clicking here.
I can say that the interesting thing about this irreverent if not downright blasphemous or sacrilegious show is that it is ultimately reaffirming of the idea of faith. The co-leads are two Elders off on their Mormon mission in Uganda, one trim and good-looking and fervent and personable and all those things you want your Elder to be, the other rather less in regard to everything except his weight. The good Elder loses his faith, and this is a bad thing. The bad Elder gets the locals to enter the church by teaching them an "interpretive" version of the Book of Mormon, which version the locals proceed to act out before the mission's supervisors to their great dismay. But in our happy ending, we are told that even this version has offered something, a ray of hope or a path to a different life. And to me, the corollary to this is that if there is good to be found even in the bastardized teaching then surely there is more than that to be found in the real teaching. Furthermore, while the musical is clearly skeptical about Joseph Smith's discovery of the Book of Mormon, the musical as a whole and the "I Believe" song in particular must present some of the basics of Mormon teaching in order to have some fun with said teachings. It is well within the realm of possibility that there are people who will find it intriguing, their curiosity heightened, and then decide to explore further. There are worse things. The church is wise to have taken a measured response to the show.
The musical is sometimes considered to be one of the great distinct American contributions to world culture. I am struck in watching The Book of Mormon to see how closely it follows in that great American tradition, only so much better in so many ways than so many of its antecedents. The Book of Mormon has a great love song. It happens to be a long double entendre set against a baptism, it's absolutely hilarious and a thoroughgoing delight to watch. But in its essence, in its form and place and function within the show, it is every bit as much the classic American musical love song as Maria in West Side Story. Similarly, the lengthy musical number in which the Ugandans present their version of Mormon history and belief is a clear and direct descendant of the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" presentation in The King and I. With significant differences. That number in The King and I has limited relevance to the basic plot, it's long and dull and boring, we should all go and see it to appreciate the place of the musical in the history of the musical and blah blah blah. But honestly, I have no particular interest in spending my life going to see a lot of these classic shows with long dance sequences stuck in just because you need to have a long dance sequence, and since I will never be able to get that Whistle a Happy Tune thing out of my head I don't need to keep going to see The King and I for a refresher course in whistling happy tunes whenever I feel afraid. But I would happily go see The Book of Mormon again.
The Book of Mormon marches along from high point to high point. It doesn't have much of a plot, but it has imagination and wit and humor and good cheer. All of which are present in virtually every musical number. So the show just flies by. You can tell that the creators have seen every great Broadway musical at least 9 times, which is easy. What's way less easy but which these people have done, is to identify what makes the shows work instead of borrowing the bad elements. Hairspray it's not, Hairspray has a much stronger plot line but is ultimately kind of dull because it takes too much to heart the idea that every character should have a big number and not enough to heart that all those big numbers should really do something to move the story along instead of just being there and being big to attract ovations from tourists.
Charlaine Harris was in town this week to do a special pre-signing of books for select bookstore accounts. She wanted to see Jersey Boys and The Book of Mormon. A good agent would happily choose to take the client to Jersey Boys, cheaper tickets, and let the publisher take to The Book of Mormon, expensive tickets. I guess I'm not a good agent. I'd already seen Jersey Boys, which is fantastic and I'd recommend it to anyone, but I'd seen it. I've been dying to see The Book of Mormon. And the availability update on the website suggested there might still be premium seats for the week in question. So I was forced -- forced, I say, forced !! -- to go get very nice seats to see this show I'd been dying to see. Sometimes, it's a hard life being a literary agent.
It was worth every penny.
The Book of Mormon is one of the best musicals I've ever seen, likely one of the best I will ever see.
Even with Elder Price being played by the understudy.
There is one flaw, if you will. The songs are excellent, lively, melodic, tuneful, all of that, but not anything like Tomorrow from Annie or Sunrise Sunset from Fiddler that will linger in the mind for 62.92 years after you've seen the show. You can bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow I will be able to hum "I Believe" to myself, to the extent of humming those two words, I will not be able to go deep into the verses through to the cobwebs and the sorrow.
No, two flaws. One number takes place in the departure lounge of the airport with the Elders on their way to their mission in Uganda, the set has the departure board at the gate listing the flight as bound for Uganda. I kept looking at that and thinking in any real airport I've ever been to the plane would be going to a particular city in Uganda, not to the country. It is hard for me to believe that the creators of the show are worried that nobody from Gulu or Jinja will want to come see the show if that sign had properly read "Kampala, Uganda" instead of just saying Uganda. I think we should start a petition to get that distraction changed.
I can't address the show from a Mormon perspective. If you want to read up on that, you can find a thorough and interesting annotation on "I Believe" from our client Bryce Moore by clicking here.
I can say that the interesting thing about this irreverent if not downright blasphemous or sacrilegious show is that it is ultimately reaffirming of the idea of faith. The co-leads are two Elders off on their Mormon mission in Uganda, one trim and good-looking and fervent and personable and all those things you want your Elder to be, the other rather less in regard to everything except his weight. The good Elder loses his faith, and this is a bad thing. The bad Elder gets the locals to enter the church by teaching them an "interpretive" version of the Book of Mormon, which version the locals proceed to act out before the mission's supervisors to their great dismay. But in our happy ending, we are told that even this version has offered something, a ray of hope or a path to a different life. And to me, the corollary to this is that if there is good to be found even in the bastardized teaching then surely there is more than that to be found in the real teaching. Furthermore, while the musical is clearly skeptical about Joseph Smith's discovery of the Book of Mormon, the musical as a whole and the "I Believe" song in particular must present some of the basics of Mormon teaching in order to have some fun with said teachings. It is well within the realm of possibility that there are people who will find it intriguing, their curiosity heightened, and then decide to explore further. There are worse things. The church is wise to have taken a measured response to the show.
The musical is sometimes considered to be one of the great distinct American contributions to world culture. I am struck in watching The Book of Mormon to see how closely it follows in that great American tradition, only so much better in so many ways than so many of its antecedents. The Book of Mormon has a great love song. It happens to be a long double entendre set against a baptism, it's absolutely hilarious and a thoroughgoing delight to watch. But in its essence, in its form and place and function within the show, it is every bit as much the classic American musical love song as Maria in West Side Story. Similarly, the lengthy musical number in which the Ugandans present their version of Mormon history and belief is a clear and direct descendant of the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" presentation in The King and I. With significant differences. That number in The King and I has limited relevance to the basic plot, it's long and dull and boring, we should all go and see it to appreciate the place of the musical in the history of the musical and blah blah blah. But honestly, I have no particular interest in spending my life going to see a lot of these classic shows with long dance sequences stuck in just because you need to have a long dance sequence, and since I will never be able to get that Whistle a Happy Tune thing out of my head I don't need to keep going to see The King and I for a refresher course in whistling happy tunes whenever I feel afraid. But I would happily go see The Book of Mormon again.
The Book of Mormon marches along from high point to high point. It doesn't have much of a plot, but it has imagination and wit and humor and good cheer. All of which are present in virtually every musical number. So the show just flies by. You can tell that the creators have seen every great Broadway musical at least 9 times, which is easy. What's way less easy but which these people have done, is to identify what makes the shows work instead of borrowing the bad elements. Hairspray it's not, Hairspray has a much stronger plot line but is ultimately kind of dull because it takes too much to heart the idea that every character should have a big number and not enough to heart that all those big numbers should really do something to move the story along instead of just being there and being big to attract ovations from tourists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)