Having started with a dramatic heading, I'm now going to come out with something equally as extreme – to a lot of anti-Muslims out there, at least.

Most Muslims are decent, hard-working people. Yet, where in my opinion they have gone wrong in the last decade or so is that some of them – those who also seem to grab the main headlines and the limelight – have increasingly associated themselves with the more extreme elements of Islam. Ban the Cross! Death to the Danish and French cartoonists! Death to the Pope! America the great Satan! Destroy Israel!...etc. And now with the recent atrocities in Paris, an attack at the very heart of all the West stands for in terms of freedom and culture.

So that now, with all that shouting at the forefront and constantly grabbing newspaper headlines, that's all that many British people and others in Europe and the USA see.

But let's take the clock back fifteen years, shall we, before this new wave of jihadism gained strength in Britain (and beyond) – and before indeed some Islamic adherents started to see their own religion as so superior, and the morals of western women so loose and inferior in comparison, that grooming our young teen girls seemed a good idea.

The majority of Muslims in this country are from Pakistan, and they moulded well into the nation, worked hard, were very enterprising, opening corner shops and stores all over. Indeed, at that stage, the most common voice heard about them (and in part because some of the West Indian population were responsible for more muggings, and perhaps weren't so hard-working and enterprising in opening their own shops, etc)... was why can't the West-Indians here be a bit more like the Asians - in other words, just get their heads down and work a bit harder without getting involved in crime. Or, as the British like to put it, 'keep their noses a bit cleaner' or 'fit in more'. And hopefully I can say this without fear of a back-lash, not only because it's true, but because my wife is partly Afro-Caribbean, and over the years that community has also seen their fair share of prejudice here, from the BNP and similar.

Then comes this new jihadist wave, and everything changes. But I would argue that in fact things have not changed - still 97% of Muslims here are hard-working, 'keeping their noses clean', non-extremists. But the problem is that these extremists are grabbing all the headlines and as a result soiling the reputation of the rest - their own people, I might add.

But there is a perfect prior example of this - the Jews. Yes, that favourite kicking-horse and long-term sworn enemy of all extreme Muslims - the Jews. And I will tell you why.

When they first came to this country in their numbers in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, they opened up exactly the same type of businesses as the Pakistanis and Indians did years later: textile sweat shops in the East End of London - Brick Lane indeed was a predominantly Jewish community right up until the 1960s – and corner shops wherever they could. Similarly, they were hard-working and kept their noses clean. And similarly, for many years they were subject in this country to exactly the same sort of racism that Pakistanis and Indians were in later years.

They always say that when you have a problem with a particular race, try to look more to what you have in common than what divides you. And so I would say this to Muslims here: you in fact have far more in common with the Jews of this country than probably any other race here, for the simple reason that you have both shared very similar immigrant experiences, albeit years apart.

But then comes the divide, and it has come about most sharply with the rising jihad mentality of this past decade. Yes, apart from the most obvious deplorable acts of 7/7, 9/11 in the USA, the Madrid train bombing and now the mass killings in Paris - in the interim we've also had the Danish cartoons, the Pope, various film makers and Charlie Hebdo. But let us return for a second to the Cross in the heading.

The Jews too have their own extreme religious element. They're called Hassidic Jews and you can see them shuffling around in long black garments and with long beards in Hatton Garden and Golders Green. But have any of these men got out on the street preaching hate towards the West – or indeed perhaps towards Arab factions against Israel – No! Do any of them, or indeed any Rabbis preach hate from the pulpit here against their fellow countrymen or other Arabs?... No!

And now let's get to the Cross: the Christian Cross too is a symbol that many a Jew could choose to rail against. After all, it was Christ's death on the Cross, and blame attached to Jews – even though it was Rome who were responsible for that crucifixion, as with thousands of other Jews - that for two thousand years has seen them systematically killed and persecuted. And the last, I might remind the Muslim community here and beyond, was just 75 years ago in Germany – not some 900 years ago with the Crusades.

But do you ever hear of a Jew complaining about the Cross symbol as being offensive, or asking for its removal from places they might visit? No!

So, my Muslim friends, if you want to know how to act in this country so as not to get a rising surge of public opinion against you – then, as much is it might be a tough pill to swallow, take a leaf from the Jews who preceded you here – because they did know how to act here.


And to any others out there who wave the flag for that same jihadist mentality or terrorists – by doing so, you are in turn waving an anti-flag for your own people and letting them down; by tarring them with that same jihadist brush (and so inflaming more public opinion against them), when indeed I still maintain most Muslims in this country, 97%, are decent, hard-working people who have little interest in this jihad- mentality which is increasingly denigrating their good names.

So, to all jihadists, I say - stop it! It's a shot in the foot against your own people, whose good name you are harming and dragging down.

I was asked by the good people at Exhibit A to prepare a suitable blog post comment for their Twelve Days of Christmas site.

Having prepared it, I saw on the TV last night the hilarious 'reverse play' version of a Christmas Carol on Blackadder; whereby he's generous to begin with, then has a worldly (and drunk!) messenger in the shape of Robbie Coltrane come and visit him and show him that if he didn't wise up and become a bit sharper, he'd be left with nothing for Christmases in the future. Hilarious, but in Victorian times we're reminded that it was one of the first main learning curves of social injustice, so I felt it was both apt for the time of year and the series of period thrillers I was now writing.

Here's the blog in in its original form, along with a link for you to be able to grab your Christmas Coupons: Exhibit A blog

Reviews and links for Letters From a Murderer here


>>>>


We’re often reminded that one of the key elements of Christmas is that it’s a season of goodwill and good cheer to all our fellow men. The season not just to be merry but kind in spirit too; and by that I don’t mean an extra case of beer or whisky, but acts of kindness of the soul.

In writing an historical thriller series, one ‘spirit’ I felt close by my shoulder throughout was indeed Charles Dickens. Not only as one of the leading Victorian authors, but also because he was one of my heroes; and not solely due to his writing ability. If that was the case, then John Fowles or Dennis Lehane would have been higher on the ‘hero’ list. It was because through his writing, Dickens was such a champion of social justice.

He made Victorian society more aware of the plight of child chimney sweeps and child labour in general; of work houses, debtor’s prisons and the terrible inadequacies and injustices that took place in orphanages at the time. Much of this indeed was written from Dickens’ personal experiences; he had himself spent some time in an orphanage and his father had been in a debtor’s prison for a spell. Whether through his writing or it coinciding with an uplift in Victorian ‘social conscience’, in the late 1800s the number of charities for the poor increased ten-fold.

Showing by example the same shades of social injustice of this era helped me greatly in writing ‘Letters from a Murderer’. I felt that many previous books featuring ‘Ripper’ victims had not shown them in a particularly kind light. Little or no empathy was developed for them; often the main focus was on the gore and brutality of the murders, almost as if having chosen to be street prostitutes they had automatically exposed themselves to such risk.

Through Ellie Cullen and her commune I wanted to bring home to readers that often for women of that era there was little choice; it was either work the streets or let your kids starve. Once that more noble cause has been identified, reader empathy for Ellie and her commune starts to grow, and Jameson and Argenti too have ‘soft spots’ for those less fortunate or might have fallen from grace. Jameson’s own mother was committed to London’s Bedlam and Argenti’s sister had been a showgirl and prostitute.

Of course, the prospect of kids ailing or starving was something Dickens played on heavily in Oliver Twist, but perhaps none more so than with ‘Tiny Tim’ in a Christmas Carol. Here in Dickens’ perennial Christmas favourite, he stabbed readers’ hearts with a spit-roast stave at the prospect of this poor crippled boy facing yet another lean Christmas. And as Scrooge gets a view of that through his ‘Ghost of Christmases Past’ visions, his conscience too is stabbed to (for once in his miserable life) do the right thing.

With the gift of that same ‘Scrooge-like’ hindsight, and knowing as we do how Victorian attitudes changed through that era, it makes me wonder whether indeed Dickens used Scrooge as representative of that changing mode of Victorian thought regarding social injustice. Or is that just me, as a writer, trying to tie up all the loose ends and add due perspective as once again we approach the season of goodwill.

In the course of writing The Second Amendment, an alternative proposal for Gun Control started to take shape. After all, I felt there would be little point in having such a controversial issue in the spotlight without any possible solution also on the table.

After contact with several gun control groups, six months ago it was suggested that I try and shape that proposal into something which could be put before Congress. Further research and contact with interested parties has added some enhancement, but the core proposal remains unchanged.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, the call for something to finally be done has of course increased. I personally have been involved in signing two petitions to the White House, one of which already has over 500,000 signatures (far more than the 100,000 asking for Piers Morgan's deportation, I might add :)  Again I was asked to finalize my own proposal for Congress, to serve either as a rider or follow-up to these petitions.

Anyone who knows the background to the writing of The Second Amendment and my lobbying efforts and comments since, will also know that part of this proposal is based on Swizerland's 'at home' private militia.  It is indeed ironic that the NRA has ofted cited Switzerland as an ideal example of a nation with a high gun ratio yet a low gun crime rate, as if to support that there is no correlation between the two.

However, Switzerland's guns are strictly controlled along the lines set out below and their model is in fact far closer to the original ethos of the 2nd Amendment than the current free-for-all in the USA.  It's also worth noting that the following proposal falls in line with recent US Supreme Court rulings that the 'right' of US citizens to bear arms may also be for personal protection and security, not just for national militia/security reasons.


Ten-point plan:
 
1. Every US home to have a gun (with current 'clearance' procedures observed). In most cases this would be a hand gun (range of choice of .38, 9mm and .45 caliber). Some may opt to have a single-shot rifle instead.

2. All weapons to be kept at home in a pin-number controlled lock-box. Those anti-gun who do not wish to have a gun at home may opt to have their weapon held in store by an elected neighbourhood-watch warden (store also pin-control locked).

3. No guns under any circumstances to be carried in the open on the streets. Current 'conceal carry' laws in certain States to be revoked. The only exception would be some hunting, farming and 'open range' areas.

4. Strict induction and training in use of the weapons, along with signed agreement as to their use: only for national security, should the nation come under threat, or for personal protection of life, limb or property.

5. If the pin-controlled boxes are opened, an alarm sounds with local police and with local wardens. This then would have the effect of calling assistance in the case of threat; but in the case of wrongful use (such as shooting a neighbour, family member or fellow US citizen outside of purely personal protection) could lead to arrest and conviction.

6. Mid-level neighbourhood wardens could have both a handgun and a rifle in their care under pin-lock. High-level neighbourhood wardens could also hold semi-automatic or assault rifles. These local wardens would be elected between the local police and neighbours, and would also normally have had police, military or gun association training.

7. The general aim would be to have an effective and highly-trained private militia force, on call and ready in the face of any national threat or emergency. While at the same time giving sufficient provision for private US citizens to protect their own family and property from threat or attack.

8. Amnesty on all guns currently in circulation. In many cases these could be exchanged for the newly-designated lock-box guns or rifles. This amnesty would be without questioning of individuals or recrimination, penalty, fines or charges for any illegal weapons handed in.

9. Heavy penalties and charges for anyone carrying illegal weapons after the amnesty period, or for carrying weapons on the streets, towns or in urban areas. 3-5 year minimum penalties.  It is accepted that even with an amnesty in place coupled with stricter control laws, it could take some time to see a reduction in the number of illegal guns. However, in the meantime US citizens would be fully protected by having their own guns at home, as well as fuller training as to their use and a more effective neighbourhood back-up force in the case of emergency (national or private).

10. Individual States may wish to propose the use of 'smart guns' as the at-home weapon of choice for individuals. These would have radio-controlled firing mechanisms which would prevent them from being fired beyond a certain radius of the designated home.


Advantages

A. The proposal falls more in line with the original ethos of the 2nd Amendment and would provide for a far more efficient private militia force than the current free-for-all whereby 98% of gun attacks are against fellow US citizens.

B. The induction and training would further bolster and enhance that private militia force, as well as generally teach people more respect regarding use of their guns, in terms of both safety and proficiency.

C. The pin-controlled boxes would at the same time protect the guns from theft by house-robbers or the danger of children gaining access to them (an increasing problem).


In summary, if indeed this or a similar proposal was adopted, it is perhaps suitably ironic that a return to the 'grass roots ethos' of The Second Amendment would not only create a stronger, more proficient and 'well-regulated' private militia force, which was the original intention, it would also lead to saving an increasing number of US lives.
  

With Aurora and now Newtown, will the US legislature finally take action over gun control? If they don’t, it starts to look unlikely that they ever will.


Partly inspired by the Oklahoma bombing – a right-wing attack on an ATF building stemming from what they saw as increasing government legislation to take their guns away – it's now twelve years since I wrote the Second Amendment.
    What should be recalled is that pre-911, the Oklahoma bombing was the single largest terrorist attack to take place on American soil. Now we all know what happened after 911: the USA took up arms against two nations – Afghanistan and Iraq. Did they make a similar purge against far right gun activists after the Oklahoma bombing? Quite the opposite. Years of appeasement to strong gun and lobby groups such as the NRA and GOA followed, including the lapsing of a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles that President Clinton had steered through Congress.
    We can now only sadly reflect that without that appeasement, incidents such as Aurora this summer and Newtown only a week before Christmas might well not have happened. And the reason for that appeasement? Gun owners and pro-gun advocates form an important part of any State electorate, so politicians are wary of upsetting them.
    Indeed, the cinema shooting in Aurora took place in the midst of the run-up to the recent elections, but still when asked by journalists whether gun control would form a part of their election platform, both Democratic and Republican representatives were loathe to make any forthright comments. Only with a far more atrocious gun incident and the lives of 20 young children lost was there finally a strong statement from the White House on the topic. ‘That’s only because the election were over and their positions were secure,’ a cynic might comment.
    And now we see even further arch-right reactions to anyone daring to mention gun control, with a petition asking for Piers Morgan’s extradition from the USA. Thereby proving that to certain people the rights enshrined in The Second Amendment eclipse all else – including First Amendment rights. Indeed, in my own small way, I have seen good reason for that wariness with some of the down-vote review reactions to The Second Amendment – the modern-day version of book-burning, far-right style. ‘Another Michael Moore feeble brain’ one swiped (I noted that he suffered the same with far-right reactions to ‘Bowling for Columbine’); ‘Cars kill more people – why not ban them?’ says another. Yep, the arguments have become even less credible since the days when some Neanderthal commented, ‘It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people,’ and countless gun advocates latched onto it as a cogent, intelligent catch-phrase to repeat.
    But thankfully other readers have grasped the intent and aim of The Second Amendment and made insightful, balanced comment: ‘I feel like this book should be required reading for the American legislature. Maybe then the trend of random deaths and ever escalating death toll in homes, cities and schools could be reversed. To people living outside the USA, their love affair with guns seems madness. To American citizens it appears to be a rational reaction to an ever-increasing fear of gun crime and violence. Who is right? Both sides? Neither? John Matthews appears to have an alternative answer that addresses all the concerns raised by both sides of the debate...’
    Reading these supportive reviews, I’m encouraged that I’m on the right track and should ignore getting called a knee-jerk liberal, a Commie (didn’t anyone tell them that ‘reds under the beds’ paranoia went out with McCarthy??) and the email threats. 
    It’s no wonder given the furore at even the mention of ‘gun control’ that Michael Moore went to a Canadian company, ‘Salter Street Productions’ to make ‘Bowling for Columbine’. Make an anti-gun comment and you’re likely to go on an NRA ‘hit list’ that members should not support or give custom to. On that list are now a number of leading corporations along with half of Hollywood. It got to the stage where it became an insult ‘not’ to be on the list, with Dustin Hoffman wryly complaining that his credibility might have taken a knock by not being included.
    As one Canadian journalist who read and reviewed The Second Amendment commented, it becomes obvious that many far-right reviewers had obviously not read the book, because if they had they’d have seen that the final solution hit upon is for a gun in every home. Simply with more effective control that might save lives.
    But what forged my interest in gun control in the first place? I suppose it goes way back to when John Lennon was shot in New York. A lot of Brits at the time thought that if he’d stayed in the UK, it wouldn’t have happened. But Americans have a number of their own celebrity and political victims to point to the need for stricter gun control: Abraham Lincoln, McKinley, John and Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, Malcolm X, Sam Cooke, Marvin Gaye and Senator Brady.
    Not long after John Lennon’s murder I emigrated with my family to Canada and while there regularly visited the USA on business trips and holidays. Canada was an interesting place to view the situation in the USA with guns. 80% of all Canadians live within 50 miles of the US border and cross it regularly. However, they also become keenly aware of the difference in crime rates when they cross. Vancouver to Seattle the murder rate was three times higher. But make the trip between Southern Ontario and Detroit and the murder rate was almost ten times higher. So it was something that became a topic de jour amongst Canadians.
    Guns are allowed in Canada, but strictly within the home. Whereas the USA allows ‘concealed carry’ in most states as well as semi-automatic rifles. A move towards the Canadian model of gun law would be a start, and indeed would also satisfy The Second Amendment. When drafted, there was no such thing as semi-automatic weapons and there was no provision for guns to be carried liberally in the open. Indeed the main condition was to be part of a ‘well-regulated militia’ – but I’ll come to that later.
    There was an interesting series of articles on gun control in the major Canadian newspapers while I was there in the 1980s. In particular one story of a Toronto IBM executive stood out. Middle-class, responsible, with a wife and two kids, he suffered a house robbery one day and so applied to have a hand-gun in the house. Readily approved, he decided to learn how to use it and so joined a gun club, which he regularly attended.
    Then one day he had a massive argument with his wife and in a rash moment found himself reaching for the bedside drawer with the gun. His hand had hardly touched the gun before he found himself recoiling in horror. The gun was packed off out of the house that same day.
    But he found himself asking the question: how many people might feel similarly intimidated by a gun in the house and the power it gave over others? And how many might not stop themselves at that final, vital moment in the midst of a blind rage?
    The answers to that, for anyone truly honest with themselves, are uncomfortable. Even if a person might consider themselves to be responsible and fully balanced, can they hand on heart say that they have always been so and cannot recall a single moment when they might have felt emotionally or mentally challenged? And if they are such supreme beings that they have never been guilty of such a moment, can they say the same of all of their neighbours and people they know?
    That guy from four doors down who sometimes gives them a strange look. The teen from round the block with a sly smile, not to mention some of the cagey-looking friends he hangs out with. And what about that guy from work who went off the rails a few years back? If an NRA or GOA member can think of a single person who might fit into such a category, then they do in fact believe in gun control – only they haven’t realized it yet.
    When I tweeted recently about the Newtown massacre, one pro-gunner retorted, ‘I haven’t shot any kids or harmed anyone, so why should my Constitutional right to have guns be effected?’ Personally, if I could turn the clock back, I’d be willing to give up my right testicle to save the lives of twenty school-kids – so someone bleating about their ‘constitutional rights’ doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid.
    But if we are talking about ‘rights’, then what about having equal rights for visitors to the USA, who right now have no choice but to go in unarmed. Turn up at JFK or LAX packing a gun and you’ll be put on the first flight back and added to an ‘undesirables and terrorists’ list. Just last year two tourists in their twenties were shot and killed when they wandered into the wrong part of Sarasota, Florida.
    Taken to a ridiculous extreme, in order for tourists to have equal protection maybe guns could be provided with rental cars? You can just imagine the scene at the local Avis check-in. ‘This is one of our most popular models and comes complete with a .38 and two rounds of ammunition. Please also consult our map for advised ‘no-go’ areas. But if you do end up having to shoot anyone, please fill in the portion of our ‘accident and incident’ form allocated for that.’
    A ridiculous example? Yes. But it serves as an illustration of how ludicrous it could become if the same paranoia now evident amongst many US citizens – ‘too many guns already out there, so I gotta have my own’ –  was extended to ‘every’ citizen. A ‘Can’t beat them so must join them’ policy with no limits is a rocky route to go. But I’m keenly aware that it could take some time for any control and linked gun amnesties to have any effect, even if the statutory rights guaranteed by The Second Amendment could be adequately addressed. 
    The wording of the Second Amendment is in fact unequivocal: it states clearly that the preservation of a ‘A well regulated militia’ is at the heart of why the right to bear arms ‘shall not be infringed’. It says nothing about pursuit of crime or shooting neighbours, rival gangs or family members, which now comprise 98% of shootings in the USA. So how do we return to the core principles set out by the original drafters of the Constitution?
    I looked at a number of other nations, but the one to shine through was Switzerland. With its neutrality dating back to the 17th Century, a private ‘at-home’ militia has been the main replacement for Switzerland’s standing army. In practical terms this means that many Swiss males have guns at home which are to be taken out only in the advent of the nation coming under threat. The guns are strictly regulated and there’s also rigorous induction and training as to their use.
    There’s an amusing anecdote from World War One when apparently the German Kaiser asked what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by half a million German soldiers. The head of the Swiss militia replied succinctly: ‘Shoot twice and go home.’
    To all intents and purposes the Swiss model more closely resembles the ‘well regulated militia’ defined in the American Constitution rather than the free-for-all of crime, gang, neighbourhood and schoolyard shootings that currently exists. But how to get such a system integrated into US society?
    Designated guns at home would certainly cut down on the annual murder rate. And the induction and training would not only fall more in line with the original ‘militia’ ethos of the Constitution, but would also teach people more respect for their guns. Strict driving instruction and codes are insisted upon before allowing anyone out on the highway with a vehicle, why not for something as lethal as a gun? This is something the NRA and GOA should fully support if they truly believe in more ‘responsible’ use by gun owners.
    The Swiss model has all guns under lock and key at militia homes. But would that be enough to deter misuse in the USA, despite the strict induction that they only be used in the case of national emergency or defence of life and property? One suggestion has been a pin-coded lock-box, but with an added security twist: tap in that pin number and it alerts the local police (or designated militia security unit). So take out that gun for defence and you’ll soon have back-up. Take it out for any other use and you’ll have just precipitated your arrest.
    As for semi-automatics, perhaps this should carry an extra level of security. Only to be held by locally designated militia wardens: those more trusted, perhaps police or army trained, and with an extra level of pin-number security.
    Another suggestion made in the course of research of The Second Amendment was for ‘smart guns’. Guns with a radio-controlled firing mechanism which only allows them to be fired within the radius of a home or at designated locations. In the age of micro-electronics and with empty space in most gun butts, certainly a possibility.
    This is a move that most gun manufacturers would also get strongly behind. One of the biggest opponents to gun control are gun manufacturers fearing declining sales, and so they actively fund and lobby through the NRA and GOA (in the same way that the tobacco lobby fought hard). But this could in fact lead to a new generation in ‘smart guns’ which could enliven their production and lead to fresh sales.
    These issues are at the heart of the thesis/proposed Bill in The Second Amendment which draws the battle lines between a White House keen to see them implemented and an ultra-right hell-bent on seeing them scuttled. But one of the first main stumbling blocks of any Congress Bill is how to get all the ‘recently designated illegal’ guns currently in circulation replaced for legally designated militia guns or smart guns? Perhaps some form of exchange and amnesty programme, coupled with strong fines and prison terms for those not adhering to it?
    Australia a while ago had such an amnesty and only months back Brazil set out on a programme of ‘gun hand-in and collection’ in order to make it a safer place in the run-up to the next Olympics. If Australia and Brazil can do it, then why not the USA? Surely that ‘can-do’ spirit, which made the country so great to begin with, is still alive there today?


*   *   *

The Second Amendment is available on the following links:

USA:
The Second Amendment #1
The Second Amendment #2

UK:
The Second Amendment #1
The Second Amendment #2

 

_

As Christmas approaches, perhaps there are some advantages publishers and retailers have overlooked with the burgeoning ebook market?

I was reminded the other day that 17 years ago I developed one of the first ever online magazines. Sounds like a bold claim? So let me take a couple of steps back.
    At the time I was running two glossy design and architectural magazines, and together with a partner we came up with the brainwave of an online magazine. British Telecom showed early interest because it could be a handy adjunct for their plans to expand video-telephony, but broadband was at that point undeveloped on a wide-scale (ISDN was the only option), so picture quality and speed was restrictive.
    Enter into the fray, Reuters, who did have a broadband network for news-feeds and financial data and were attracted by the idea of their traders having an online magazine to shop for anything from a bottle of wine to a Porsche in between trades.
    So I designed and developed the first online magazine prototype for Reuters simply because at that time few had the bandwidth to carry it and the internet was in its infancy. The internet was in fact what led to the project  stalling a year later because Reuters - and rightly so - wanted to 'wait and see' how that developed. So meanwhile I joined a political magazine and wrote another book, and suddenly I had both feet back in the print-publishing camp - again.
     In the following years as the internet developed there was much talk about print books becoming redundant and electronic media taking over completely. But for me, two factors would always hold this back: many people worked all week on a computer, so the last thing they'd want to do is spend their leisure time also strapped to a computer.  Second, portability. The ease and feel and portability of a book, easily read on a train or on the beach, was one of its main attractions.
    Then along came Kindle, Kobo and Nook and these issues were addressed to varying degrees. But as these products made stronger inroads into the marketplace, the last bastion of resistance didn't come from c0nsumers, but from publishers and retailers.
    And, taken on face value, that resistance makes sense: having built their empires on a system revolving around the printing and distribution of paper books, the emergence of an alternative which could distribute that same product directly to consumers in milliseconds - thereby cutting them out 0f the cycle - had, for them, distinctly worrying implications.
    But I don't think enough publishers are thinking about this threat laterally by at the same time looking at its advantages, in particular in addressing an even deeper,  long-standing industry concern: print and distribution costs.
    This was something I was keenly aware of from my magazine days: 60% of our revenue went on print and production costs. I also recall one of my first book editors, Richard Evans (who also edited Terry Pratchett) complaining that booksellers often only noticed the returns on a book rather than how many were sold overall. So a book that sold 80% of its 100,000 print run, unfortunately what stuck predominantly in bookseller's minds was the 20,000 returned rather than the 80,000 sold.
    So, one target right there for publishers:  if they can shift half their sales to ebooks where returns are nil, that would effectively halve their paper returns ratio - surely an advantage?
    But so many publishers are focused purely on the threat or are busy adopting high ebook mark-ups to protect their main print market, that all too often these side advantages are being missed. 
     One of these, as we approach Christmas, comes keenly into focus: packaging. Buying a book for a child, it's hard to say: 'I sent that book directly to your Kindle. Didn't you get it?' Not being able to see, touch and physically unwrap a present simply doesn't have the same feel to it. It becomes somewhat detached, sterile. The expectation and mystique long associated with Christmas gifts is lost.
    But if publishers and retailers could work out ways of packaging their ebooks as gifts - along the lines seen with CD packaging - it could breathe new life into the ebook market for high street retailers. Indeed, ebooks could be downloaded directly from distributors - all that would be needed in-store would be quick-fold covers and cases. Again, no returns.
    And with a touch more lateral thinking, ebook packaging could also be the next stage in enlivening the BOGOF (buy-one-get-one-free) market. After all, the cost of including an additional ebook with either an existing ebook or print book would be minimal.
    But while the industry is focused mainly on trade-protecting against market disadvantages, that sort of lateral-advantage thinking might be slow in arriving.

Brand name authors increasingly dominate the bookshop front rows - though at least in one respect Kindle Indies have the last laugh.


Last year when I first put my back-list titles on Kindle, I also sent a notification to my email list.
    Now amongst those were several crime and mystery reading groups in the USA, many of which had their periodic get-togethers in local bookstores.
    Some duly responded with thank-yous for the notification, but one lashed back: 'How dare you send this to us! It's people like Amazon Kindle who are putting us small independent bookstores out of business.'
    Now at the other end of the scale, Kindle has been tremendous for many writers. Established writers have seen a whole new audience opened up with the advent of kindle - but the real boon has been to fledgling authors previously unpublished. Some/many, readers might argue, should have remained that way - unpublished; but in turn some/many are very worthy. Look at the various 'Indie' author blogs and comments and you'll see heartbreak tales of writers trying for years to get published without success. And just at the point of starvation or when they're about to jump off a bridge from the constant rejection, the shining knight in armour of kindle rides up to the rescue. Heartwarming tales indeed.
    But what I found ironic about this bookseller's retaliatory comment was that it has in fact been the 'greed' of bookshops which has brought about this cycle. A strange word to use, 'greed', you might say, in the advent of so many bookshops fighting for their lives, and the likes of Borders going to the wall not so long ago. So let me explain.
    The business of selling books has increasingly been driven by 'promotions' the past 15 years. Now in the mid 1990's, though these frontline bookshop promotions were paid for, the costs were not excessive and most publishers could budget them in comfortably for a new author. Also they gave opportunites for new authors to 'price-compete' because invariably the new Grisham or Clancy title would be sold at full price (they were far too grandiose to get themselves involved in the tawdry business of discounting).
    So a publisher could list a new author at 20-25% below the latest Grisham or Clancy, and if exposed on the front line of bookstores, sales could be very bullish indeed.
    But then two things happened: year by year the costs of front-line promotions went up (now a decent book-chain promotion can cost anything from $10,000 - $30,000) - so to hit bookstores on a multiple basis, the outlay can be $100,000 or more. Then the major authors also discovered that price discounting could greatly boost their sales, so they wanted first dibs on these; or perhaps their publishers made those decisions for them.
    However, as any agent will tell you: if a book is NOT promoted and does not get on that front line in the bookstores, the chances of it selling well are low. And that's even more acute for a new author. A well known author stands a good chance of selling well from the back rows. But reverse that position and imagine you're a little known author selling from the back rows of a bookstore at full price, while the front rows are dominated by brand name authors selling at a discount or 2 for 1. 
    I recall the ex-MD of Penguin UK, Helen Fraser, lamenting how it had unfortunately become (largely as a result of these bookstore price-promotion policies) an 'All or nothing' game. The costs of getting into these bookstore promotions were so high and the resultant risk so great to launch new authors that increasingly publishers were shying away from even attempting to do so. And so we return full circle to the Indie author with a worthwhile book losing the will to live after countless rejections, with some insight now to the backdrop as to why this is happening.
    So, paradoxically, we have a price-promotion strategy starting as a bookstore ethos which when passed on to publishers makes them cut back on the new authors they take on. Kindle then arrives and opens up new opportunities for those previously unpublished authors, and as it develops starts to threaten the bookstores and the very structure of traditional publishing which originally closed so many doors to them. A certain poetic irony, you might say. 'Karma in practice' and the 'Goths and Rome cycle all over again'; and all the other worn comments that probably sound better after a doobie or two.