With headlines like “The Justice Department Jumps into Amazon’s Pocket” and “The Justice Department Just Made Jeff Bezos Dictator-for-Life,” you’d think all bookstores would be closing up shop tomorrow and publishing executives would be joining lines at soup kitchens. But before we dish out that chicken noodle, let’s consider a few things.

1. Amazon is a for-profit company. Just a year ago, people everywhere were insisting that Amazon was unethically pricing its Kindle devices at a loss in order to make money on the content. Now people are insisting that Amazon is unethically underpricing its content to make money on the devices. Stop the madness. If you want to argue conspiracy theories, at least go with the popular theory that Amazon is content to lose money on everything in order to fulfill its evil plans of world book domination at some future point, when it will have the power to charge an arm and a leg for the next J.K. Rowling or Suzanne Collins offering. But then again…

2. There is no such thing as a monopoly in digital media. Maybe twenty years ago there was, but those days are long past. Every media seller — of music, movies, TV shows and, yes, books — knows that there is now ALWAYS a competitor: piracy. It doesn’t get the same hype as movies and music, but books are pirated too. It’s child’s play to remove the DRM from an e-book. So once Amazon has finished stabbing its voodoo doll and won Dictator-for-Life status for Bezos, what it will find when it jacks up its prices is that few will pay them.

What keeps people from pirating, if it isn’t DRM? Ask iTunes. Make it really easy to purchase and make it reasonably priced, so that piracy isn’t worth the bother. The music industry howled at iTunes demands for 99 cent songs and $10 albums. If you ask them, I’m sure there are music execs who will tell you that the industry is on the brink of disaster. And yet somehow the hits keep on coming.

3. Independent sellers won’t be muscled out. Well, that depends on who you count as independent. Apparently, we’re only supposed to count indie book stores as independent, because they’re cool and moral. Except that there’s a new world of independent seller coming to life out there. Self-publishers like Amanda Hocking are carving out their own niches. Established authors are starting to go that route as well — and not just famous authors who can be attacked for riding the coattails of the publicity earned through the hard work of their previous publishing houses. Traditionally published authors who aren’t bestsellers have been finding that the benefits of being backed by a traditional publisher aren’t what they used to be. The idea that all published authors get a devoted publicist and marketing support is a fantasy. Most writers have to put a lot of work into their own marketing, setting up — and paying the expenses for — their own book signings and readings. John Grisham, no doubt, gets subsidized book tours. Most writers are not Grisham.

Artists of all stripes are looking for a different path. Radiohead and Louis C.K. have sold their own content. Bestselling author Barry Eisler reportedly turned down a half-million dollar advance to self-publish. And print-on-demand technology has created new possibilities for small indie publishers. And in case you forgot, one of the options for self-publishers is CreateSpace (my own choice), which is owned by, yup, Amazon.

4. Amazon is just the new publishing bad boy on the block. Remember the good ol’ days when Barnes & Noble was the evil villain, because they demanded — gasp — lower prices and more favorable return policies from publishers? Then big box stores like Walmart got the spotlight for demanding even better terms, and Barnes & Noble cried foul because B&N provides the real market for publishers. They should be rewarded. About those rewards…

5. The publishing industry is so miserably inefficient, if it were a horse it would be shot. First off, much of the hard data from publishing is kept a big secret. After reading this, you might understand why.

Numbers vary, but the estimate of traditionally published physical books runs about 100,000 titles per year. The figures I’ve seen show that around 90% of these do not sell over 1,000 copies. (I don’t have links for all of these figures — some of this research I did back when I was trying to determine what percentage of traditionally published books sell substantially better than self-published ones.)

Bestsellers are usually measured by how many copies are sold to bookstores, not by how many are sold to actual customers. Plus, publishers don’t want to run out of copies if a book hits it big, so there’s a big incentive for publishers to have large print runs, even if most of those books don’t sell. Bookstores are fine with that, because they can return unsold books to the publishers for credit. The bigger the chain (think B&N and Walmart), the bigger the credit — up to 100%.

So what happens to all those returned books? They go into warehouse storage, millions of them. One publisher estimated that 25% of their sales were returned. Of course, those books may then be shipped out again to other stores or even to the same store, if demand picks up. Usually it doesn’t — once books are eventually deemed unlikely to sell, they get pulped. Destroyed. How many are pulped? An estimated 40% of books. Yes, you read that right.

Enter the publishers, who swear on a stack of many, many unsold Bibles, that they can’t sell e-books for less than physical books because all the costs are in development and marketing. What can you say about a business in which removing the cost of materials, storage, transportation — and then possible repeated storage and repeated transportation — of items, many of which are never sold, doesn’t help the bottom line? Remember, there are NO returns on e-books. No shipping, no storage. Yes, they have to create the book in different formats — Kindle, iBook, ePub. I know how long that takes. It’s not excruciating difficult or time-consuming.

As for the marketing costs, the bulk of that goes to a small percentage of bestsellers. As mentioned earlier, many writers get little or no help with marketing once it’s clear that the book will not hit big. That can happen before the book is even released, if the frequent turnover in the publishing staff results in a book being reassigned to someone who isn’t quite as excited about it as the previous editor.

There’s another big cost that ought to be considered marketing — huge advances for famous authors that have no chance of being earned. Remember Hillary Clinton’s $8 million dollar advance from Simon & Schuster? They would have had to sell over 1.5 million copies to make that back. But they didn’t expect to, did they? They won the auction and got a lot of press.

Seriously, it’s time for a shake up. I’m not an Amazon fan-girl — I have an iPhone and a MacBook but I still understand the blessings and curses of Apple. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Amazon tried some questionable tactics as a result of its market share, just as others did before them, but the pirates will still be out there if things get out of hand.

I love books of all kinds, physical and digital. I love bookstores. But the times they are a changing’. E-readers appear to be encouraging people to read more. Let’s figure out what that means in terms of meeting places and connecting over reading. Let’s figure out how the new indie sellers — self-publishers and small POD micropresses – can get the word out about their offerings. One of the brickbats leveled at big sellers has been that they have too much power to control what gets sold. The Internet can help level that playing field if we stop insisting that the independent bookstore is the sole protector of the mid-list novel.

One last comment on the Justice Department case: those who want to excoriate Amazon for sacrificing profits in exchange for a long-term strategy, you might want to check out the full statement by Hatchette Book Group, who joined the settlement. They did not admit to any illegal price fixing, but they did note — presumably as evidence of their good intentions — that the new policy for which they were targeted actually earned them less than the previous pricing plan. So why did they go with it? Long-term strategy, perhaps?

Want to be a writer, or any kind of creative artist? The pay is, shall we say, not impressive, but the sense of self-fulfillment is lovely. It is, obviously, a little harder to achieve that fulfillment when you’re cramming it in around a full-time job. Some energetic people thrive under such limitations, but I’m certainly not the only one who found dead-end jobs soul-crushing. Despite the cliche of the tortured artist, crushed souls are not often creative souls. They’re souls who sit around watching TV and playing solitaire in their off time.

And yet we handicap our youth in this country, charging so much for a college education that budding young artists are hamstrung by debt. Here they are at a time in their lives where most are unimpeded by family obligations, where most are free to move about the country — but they aren’t free to compromise on their finances. They can’t afford to be starving artists. They can go without food but they can’t go without paying back their student loans.

Student loans have been in the news of late due to the proposed doubling of interest rates for students. This is so emblematic of politics today. Several Republican politicians argued that they worked their own way through college — without noting how much the cost of higher education has risen during that time (or noting the drop in actual minimum wage, so less money to pay higher bills). But the real kicker is this: Democrats would like to keep the rate steady and pay for it by taxing the extra income of wealthy people who have been hiding that income from payroll taxes. The Republican proposal was to take money from the health care program. Let’s think about that for a moment. Rich people shielding their income from payroll taxes or helping people afford health care. The fact that the Republican proposal is likely a ploy simply to make the bill unacceptable makes it more sick, not less.

But this is where my fantasy comes in. A real Republican party — one that doesn’t cater to the far right, one that isn’t afraid to acknowledge that 95% of women have used birth control, one willing to take serious looks at climate science and even, gasp, evolution — would have the credibility to press one of the points they were making about the interest rate. Namely, that cheap loans do not provide any incentive for schools to lower their prices. I agree, Republicans! If schools can’t provide the kind of education they currently offer for less money, then we should be talking about the kinds of education normal people can afford. Why start with the assumption that we need to keep the status quo? Unfortunately, given the comments Republicans have been making, such a discussion can’t take place in good faith. Maybe someday.

And yes, I will be paying my student loans forever. Maybe not forever if I qualify for one of those debt forgiveness plans after 25 years of paying. It would be nice not to have to use my Social Security benefits, should they still exist, on continuing those payments. I’m just fortunate to have some time away from the soul-crushers (thanks, honey), though that could change at any time.

So the Pulitzer Committee didn’t feel there was anything out there up to its standards? What are they trying to say, exactly? Meh?

There really weren’t any books that measured up to Alison Lurie’s Foreign Affairs? I love Alison Lurie, but come on. No short stories on the level of Elizabeth Strout’s? And don’t get me started on the Rabbit series.

Ann Patchett wrote an op-ed for the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/and-the-winner-of-the-pulitzer-isnt.html), in which she pointed out that the failure to choose a winner results in more than disappointed writers. Pulitzers are followed by press and sales and excitement about literature. What message does it send that there is no award this year? That there’s only a certain kind of Fiction that real connoisseurs appreciate, and nobody published any of it in the last year?

My brilliant response to the Committee is simple. I’ll read. All the finalists, as well as those suggested in Patchett’s piece. Download the Times’ 100 notable books if you wan’t more suggestions.

So for a few days last week I was reading instead of writing. Shame, shame — except that I always feel that tug of war going on between reading and writing. Last week I was rereading books I’ve read many, many times — Richard Jury novels by Martha Grimes. Just procrastinating, right?

Only later did I question why I was rereading these specific books. I was facing a problem in my own novel and didn’t know what to do about it. The chapters were becoming too depressing, without any scenes providing a break from the darkness. If if was bleak for me to write them, how could I expect readers to keep reading? Certainly there are great novels that are unfailingly dark, but my series doesn’t really fall into that category. I had a problem, and I was subconsciously looking to a writer who manages that balance in a way that I admire. There’s no shortness of sadness in the Richard Jury series, but Grimes’s humor is as much a part of these books as the mystery. Rereading her chapters with the Warboys, with Melrose becoming a brilliant conversationist when he gives up speech — it not only inspired me to make the necessary changes in my own writing, it made excited about writing again. And it made me laugh. Again.

Yes, I’ve come out of my reading bubble. As usual, I scooped up the latest Sara Paretsky novel and read straight through.

Break Down is the 15th installment in the V.I. Warshawski series (not counting the short stories) and marks the 30th anniversary of the series. It’s also the first time I remember V.I. referring to herself as 50, though she must have passed that milestone a few books ago. Vic remains an inspiration — she can still fight several men at once, take on the rich and powerful and fill out a scarlet evening dress. She can also spill food on her good clothes, get dirty and sweaty and skip many meals, despite her family motto. The main draw of the series remains the main draw, after all these years — I don’t know anyone like Vic but I wish I did. (Even if that would, of course, put me in danger.)

Break Down is the strongest offering by Paretsky since Blacklist. Like Body Work, Break Down weaves together a number of different storylines, but the resulting tapestry holds together much better. In Body Work, I felt like there wasn’t enough space to give the various threads — and more importantly, their promising characters — their due. Break Down doesn’t quite reach the level of characterization of some early V.I. novels, but Paretsky does a great job of balancing the storylines — none of them feel rushed or left undone. I kept reading not simply out of loyalty to V.I. and Paretsky, but because I couldn’t wait to see how it would all come together.

The political aspects common to the series reflect our changing society without sounding overly preachy — in fact, Paretsky introduces a rich, liberal family, showing that even the more enlightened of the 1% can have their sense of entitlement. We feel bad for Murray, even while sharing V.I.’s frustration and disappointment with her old friend and colleague. Lawlor and Kendrick, a “news” show host and politician respectively, demonstrate the depressing exaltation of political extremism at the cost of real debate over real issues, ones affecting our daily lives.

Not everything is depressing, however. The scenes with Mr. Contreras, the dogs and two little girls are priceless. It’s also nice to see Petra gaining a little maturity.

I did have a few quibbles, mainly with the ending. I won’t include any spoilers here, so I can’t get specific. My problem is that it closely resembled the ending to a previous book, in a way that seemed especially unrealistic because you probably can’t go to that well more than once. It also included some actions that I considered out of character for some of the regulars. In general, the series’s endings have become somewhat predictable, with the rich and powerful getting off with little consequence and V.I. joining with friends to remind herself of the good in life. I like that Paretsky doesn’t shy away from giving us the unsatisfying yet realistic version of justice, but it’s beginning to feel formulaic in its depiction.

A couple of other quibbles:

V.I.’s bipolar friend seems to be stuck in one pole — manic. There’s no discussion of her depressive phases, little or no discussion of her stable phases, nor is there any question of how her medications might have affected her. The friend seems to be limited to the “bipolar genius” cliche.

Some actions come off more as being necessary for tying up the plot than as a natural progression of the situation. One character uses a “middleman” for communication that is not illegal, and then the middleman holds the meeting at his workplace? Why would he do that? Because it’s necessary for the plot? Another example came closer to the end. (Again, I’m not providing context as to avoid spoilers.) Why not photograph evidence and text or email it to as many people as possible immediately? So that the evidence has the chance to be lost?

Paretsky stays true to V.I.’s avoidance of police involvement, but I’d like to have seen Vic second-guess herself at least a little with respect to the opening scene. It’s a great set-up, but then she sends a bunch of tween girls out alone into Chicago with a murderer possibly still nearby — one that might fear he’s been seen? I understand she was protecting the girls whose families may have been illegals, but for once I actually felt sympathetic for the police. At a murder scene, she hid witnesses and potentially put off the discovery of evidence. Reacting as a parent to that scene, I was fairly upset — I would want to know right away that my 12-year-old was wandering about Chicago, not hours later after her book club’s cousin/investigator searched for them. I also wouldn’t appreciate my kid getting the message from a responsible adult that she should avoid the police at all costs, even when possibly in danger.

Jake Thibaut again seems like an afterthought. Granted, Morrell was a tough act to follow, but Jake’s role is so limited that he still doesn’t feel quite real to me.

All in all, a worthy addition to the Warshawski series. I’m looking forward to year 31.

I love reading, and yet, somehow I don’t seem to do as much of it as I used to. Trying to balance writing and reading doesn’t come naturally, unfortunately. I can do one or the other but not both, not easily. Of course, that seems to be true of so much in my life — I can exercise and eat more healthfully, but not if I want to write and read. I write chapter after chapter if I don”t mind the house looking like crap.

So, starting small, I’m going through Best of 2011 reading lists from various sources. My first try is 1Q84, which is looong, but I’ve never read any Japanese writers outside of short story collections.

And yes, I am going to the gym. And I will finish that chapter draft today. Mwa ha ha.

I’m working on making some New Year’s Resolutions and want to come up with a couple for writing. Anybody else out there have some writing resolutions?

As part of the Nanowrimo experience, I decided to try out the software for novelists, Scrivener. I’m happy to say it was both easy to use and inspiring. The bad news is that I probably won’t be buying it soon.

First, the positives. You can see all your “chapters” listed on the left for easy access. They don’t have to be chapters, either. You can just write scenes, if you haven’t quite decided where to put them yet. To help with that, each item comes with an “index card,” on which you can either compose a short description or have one automatically created. Then you can move the index cards around on a virtual bulletin board to try out ideas. Another view lists all the chapters and scenes, complete with stats — number of words, writing goals, etc. (especially helpful to Nanowrimoers).

Even better, you can keep all your research in Scrivener and that appears in a box just below the chapter list. There’s also a section for character and location cards, so that you can keep all your info about a given character or place in one tidy spot for reference.

Another feature, which I haven’t tested yet, is the compilation feature. The program will turn your finished draft into a Kindle or ePub book for you. I wasn’t as interested in this feature, since my husband does this for me with a greater level of customization, but it could be a key feature for many.

While I found it inspiring to have the whole book right there in the window, without having to worry about flipping back and forth between documents (yes, it can save as Word and several other types of files), I probably won’t be buying the program just yet. The cost is currently $45, which is a lot for someone without steady income. I never did move my research over to Scrivener, because I’m addicted to Evernote, which is officially Fabulous. (If you’re a writer and you’re unfamiliar with Evernote, check it out immediately. It’s free.) I can use any number of word processors and have access to them everywhere through either Dropbox or Google Docs or iCloud or even Evernote again. (Scrivener has cloud access as well.)

If I were well enough off, I would buy Scrivener at full price just because it makes my working draft feel a little more like a connected whole. I’d buy it to just to support the product, which is well thought-out and bug-free, at least during my trial. If I’d finished Nanowrimo, I probably would have bought it with the 50% discount for finishers. But at $45 and limited income, I can’t ignore the fact that it really does things that I already have free tools to do.

Other pros: Templates, help with query/submission letters (maybe they could add a submissions tracker in the future?), name generator (creates only very common American names), support for short stories.

Cons: User not supposed to include Chapter headings in text, as program inserts those upon compilation. That’s good, since a change in chapter order would otherwise result in edits to all chapter numbering. But then I still had to add them back in later for submitting individual chapters to my writers group. Also, I used the version for Mac, which is their original and most developed version. Scriveners for Windows may be more bumpy.

Pro or con, depending on view: This program doesn’t teach you how to write a novel — no sample outlines or story ideas. I wasn’t looking for anything like that, but some people are.

Big Pro: Free trial lasts for real 30 days of use, not 30 calendar days. This means it only counts the days that you use the software.Try it and let me know what you think. http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php

UPDATE: With my husband’s encouragement, I went ahead and bought Scrivener for Mac. Although I had other tools to accomplish what Scrivener can do in terms of content, I missed the inspiration I got from seeing my novel as a growing whole every day. Plus, Scrivener does make it quite easy to check details from other chapters quickly.

Starbucks is playing the Nutcracker, one of my all time favorite pieces of music. I can’t say I know much about classical music, but the emotional ride of the Nutcracker inspires me no end.

I’ve heard people complaining lately of the early onset of Christsmas marketing, and it does lessen the specialness of the time when I see holiday decorations going on sale before Halloween. But last night we realized that Christmas less than two weeks away. I’m all for Christmas music and decorating trees and wrapping presents. After I finish this chapter.

I’m beginning to wonder if writing is more the tool of the lazy thinker. Why, you ask? My new phone is giving me an identity crisis. I’ve always thought of writing as one of my strengths, but using the new speech recognition software has me questioning my assumptions. I wanted to test out the speech recognition software by speaking my blog entry instead of writing it. However, I’ve found that composing by speaking is not one of my strong suits. I’ve become very accustomed to the idea of being able to move comments around through cut-and-paste. And now I find it hard to organize my thoughts in a manner that allows me to speak them. In fact I find this torturous. There’s something about having my fingers closet hanging over the keyboard that gives my brain time to think. I don’t even know when to start a new paragraph (had to add this back in — software thought I was telling it to make new paragraph) if I’m talking. This is terrible I’m never speaking another blog again.

Maybe, though, I’m thinking I should do this as an exercise every now and again. The forced nature of having to think out my sentences ahead of time can only improve my writing ability.

If you’re a writer and you have access to voice recognition software, give it a try. I’d love to know if you found it as difficult as I did to compose something by speaking instead of writing.