You may not think this affects you because you’re just a reader or book blogger or whatever (to be honest, I didn’t think it affected me either), but believe it or not, it does.

These two bills will basically give the government the right to deny access, for however long they feel like it, to any website it so chooses whenever it so chooses without prior warning or explanation to the website owner. That’s a generalization, but that’s essentially what it boils down to.

So, if you or one of your favourite bloggers were to link out to a website that was hosting something deemed to be pirated, access to the website that did the linking could be blocked. Just for linking to a site that MIGHT have pirated material on it. Heck, the blogger doesn’t even need to be the one to provide the link…it could be a commenter or guest author or a spambot.

Millions of people, especially small businesses, to include small publishing houses, indie authors, and bloggers in general, will be adversely affected by this. They won’t have the resources necessary to fight should their site (and livelihood) get shut down. They can have their payment processors* cut all ties with them. Oh, and they can be sent to prison for up to 5 years. (What due process?)

All over one little link.

Or if that doesn’t get you, how about the larger sites that have become a major part of your internet life? Sites like Google, or YouTube, or even Amazon or Barnes & Nobles. Yes, even these sites could be blocked because, guess what?, they allow user submitted content and should one of those users post an unseemly link in the forum or publish a video with a copyrighted song playing in the background, POOF goes the site.

To me, that’s just plain stupid and infuriating. Whoever came up with it (eh hem…RIAA, MPAA, major publishers, television networks, etc., I’m looking at you) needs to yank their heads from their rear ends and wake up. Breaking the internet is not the answer.

In protest, I’ve decided to join the likes of Reddit, Wikipedia, and WordPress and go dark tomorrow from 8AM through 8PM.

I urge other bloggers to join in and help spread the word to kill these two bills where they stand, for should they pass, blogging and socializing on the internet will become a lot less fun and a lot more like an unnerving dystopian novel. (I swear George Orwell must have been psychic.)

*If you sell digital goods, for instance your ebook, directly on your site, yes, this affects you, too.

Recent Arrivals chronicles the books that have made their way onto the Today, I Read… bookshelf. Here’s the latest arrival: The Alchemy of Forever by Avery Williams

First paragraph: I feel as though I’ve been waiting for the masquerade ball for my entire life. At fourteen, I am eligible for marriage and finally old enough to attend. The torchlight flickers on the sandstone facade of Lord Suffit’s palace on the Thames, and the roses woven into my hair are heady and sweet. I remember to push my mast up over my face before I walk through the great arched doorway.

Initial thoughts: Let me say up front that I’d not heard word one about this novel. Never read anything by Avery Williams before and, in general, have been out of the loop. But when I checked my mail and saw a package from Simon & Schuster and with tucked inside a book with a very pretty cover, I couldn’t resist checking out the back cover and blurb. (By the way, the picture does not do the actual cover justice.)

My first thought was, Hmm, this reminds me of that episode of The Outer Limits where the cops were chasing those spirit orb glow-y things that kept leaping from body to body. Before you think that’s a bad thing, it’s actually not. The Outer Limits happens to be one of my all time favourite shows. So while the gist of the story sounded quite similar to that episode, it was different enough to grab my attention—different in a way that made me want to read this book—like—yesterday.

As luck would have it, the book doesn’t appear over-long, so it should only take a few hours, however, it’s the beginning of a series, so I’m a little worried that this won’t be a fully contained story. I saw a lot of that going around last year—an almost story with a cliffhanger ending in an attempt to shove you into the next book—but the good news is that I haven’t seen it too much with stuff put out by S&S.

Book description:

Her first love made her immortal…

Her second might get her killed.

After spending six hundred years on Earth, Seraphina Ames has seen it all. Eternal life provides her with the world’s riches, but at a very high price: innocent lives. Centuries ago her boyfriend, Cyrus, discovered a method of alchemy that allows them to take the bodies of other humans by jumping from one vessel to the next, ending the human’s life in the process. No longer able to bear the guilt of what she’s done, Sera escapes from Cyrus and vows to never kill again.

Then sixteen-year-old Kailey Morgan gets into a horrific car accident right in front of her, and Sera accidentally takes over her body while trying to save her. For the first time, Sera finds herself enjoying the life of the person she’s inhabiting–and falling for the human boy who lives next door. Buy Cyrus will stop at nothing until she’s his again, and every moment she stays, she’s putting herself and the people she’s grown to care for in great danger. Will Sera have to give up the one thing that’s eluded her for centuries: true love?

Book Details: 246 pages; Simon & Schuster; Pub. January 3, 2012

As you can see from my screen snap that there’s only ~17 hours remaining. I’ve just purchased mine (woohoo!) and will probably use it for more books (big surprise, huh?).

I was referred there by a friend and now I’m referring you. When you make your purchase you’ll also receive a referrer link and if you refer 3 of your friends, you’ll get your deal for free.

I should also mention that supplies may be limited. Also, this is open for US residents only. Sorry to my international readers.

About the book:

For broken-hearted Olivia Larsen, nothing can change the fact that her twin sister, Violet, is gone… until a mysterious, beautiful gown arrives on her doorstep. The dress doesn’t just look magical; it is magical. It has the power to grant her one wish, and the only thing Olivia wants is her sister back.

With Violet again by her side, both girls get a second chance at life. And as the sisters soon discover, they have two more dresses-and two more wishes left. But magic can’t solve everything, and Olivia is forced to confront her ghosts to learn how to laugh, love, and live again.

In a breathtaking debut from Alexandra Bullen, WISH asks the question: If you could have anything, what would you wish for?

You can read the book through the widget or download a copy to your Kindle. Also, keep your eyes open for a Wishful Thinking giveaway (which will be open to international readers, yay!).

I mentioned that I wouldn’t comment on the subject further unless Lassen offered a proper response to the plagiarism allegations and he did. In fact, he published a pseudo-defense on his blog—which ended with this lovely observation: “One man’s paraphrasing is another man’s plagiarism.”—but deleted it within 24 hours. Too bad it wasn’t faster than Google cache.

(Click image for full-sized view.)

And if you’re in the camp who believes I’ve somehow Photoshopped the screen capture, you can see Lassen’s words in all their glory by visiting Paul G. Bens, Jr’s blog where Lassen left this same defense. (I also urge you to read Mr. Bens’ cogent response.)

Basically, in a roundabout way, Lassen admits to plagiarising some of his reviews but says that it’s all right because the original authors didn’t lose income, that he did not plagiarise all of his reviews and that the GLBT/Jewish artistic/literary works needed an advocate at all costs, including integrity.

Now, a few comments:

• Plagiarism, period, is wrong.
• Lassen did violate the copyrights of various sources from which he plagiarised, including the other Amazon reviewers*, which is why Amazon nuked all his reviews**.
• There was a net loss to the author, even if it was merely recognition for his work, but also in tangible goods since Lassen received review copies, at least in part, due to his reviewing history.
• As Mr. Bens, a GLBT author, pointed out, this has absolutely nothing to do with the GLBT community and has everything to do with Lassen’s plagiary. This could actually be harming the GLBT community because those who’ve suffered a genuine slight may find it more difficult to get support for their cause.
• Finally, there is a huge difference between paraphrasing, with attribution, and copy+pasting someone else’s work, then calling it your own.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The GLBT and Jewish artistic/literary communities need advocates who aren’t willing to sell their souls for some free swag, people who are willing to provide genuine reviews. And they must be out there, otherwise, from whom could Lassen have plagiarised?

* Some believe that once a review is published on Amazon.com, the author relinquishes the copyright. Not accurate. The author still retains his copyright, however, the author grants Amazon.com a whole lot of leverage to  use, store, and display the review however Amazon.com sees fit.

** No one that I’ve seen claims all 3,000+ reviews were plagiarised, however, it would take far too much manpower to read/compare every single one, especially since a preponderance of them displayed signs of plagiary and the problem was habitual.

[The people involved] consider themselves to be “policeman of the net. Whatever their reason for their actions may be, it appears that destroying another person makes them look good in some way. The strange thing is that several of them are not even ready to disclose their true identities and hide behind fake names and profiles. This action was begun by another reviewer, E. Jacobs (whose real name is Erin Elway) and she enlisted a group of “Amazonians” to help her reach gold. She enlisted a Jason Kirkfield, a very bitter and outspoken children’s book reviewer with a poisoned tongue, a Barbara Barclay who revealed herself when she and Elway wrote disgusting self-righteous letters to Lambda Literary about me, two characters under the names of Muzzlehatch and Truthseeker, an African American, John Green, who was enlisted to accuse me of racial slurs (I used the words ape and gorilla in a review and was accused of racism), venomous Timothy Riley, another top ten reviewer, then there are Theo and Terry, the acid tongued “avoraciousreader”, Gary Peterson, Lynn E. Lisa Mims, the recently added two days ago, Ann-Kat, J. Faulk, L. Power, tweekster and several others. You cannot imagine the way they speak. They claim that I have made death threats against them, they are planning to issue restraining orders against me, they have written to authors and publishing houses and have contacted work places claiming to be representatives of Amazon.com and released information that they had to right to know on the internet. Jason Kirkfield sees himself as a Christ figure and he is evil in speech and in deed but he has a great supporting cast.
While my profile page was posted several years ago, they chose to contact my former employers. What is so interesting is that this seems to be a 24 hour job for them. Kirkfield, for example, posted news of this blog at 1:47 AM and the author put it on the net at just 12:22 AM. They scour the net, etc. looking for news of me. I cannot imagine what a lonely life that must be.

–Comment by Amos Lassen dated December 12, 2010, 10:05AM

I attempted to leave a response there directly, but each time the comment was deleted, so I’ve decided to publish it here. It also seems someone was trying to break into my Gmail account—read into that what you will.

I’d like to address a few things specifically since Mr. Lassen saw fit to invoke my name.

Prior to his statement, I made only a whopping total of three posts to the Amazon forum thread concerning the matter (here, here, and here), the third of which linked people to the blog entry where I had compiled documentation of his plagiarism.

Anyone is free to see exactly the way I speak, no imagining necessary, since that Amazon thread and my blog are freely available to the public and I’ve never contacted Lassen directly by email, phone, or post. (I’ve since made additional comments on the Amazon forum thread and at the Jesse Wave blog, but those are also public, therefore free for anyone to read.)

Quote Lassen: "They claim that I have made death threats against them,"

No, I haven’t.

Quote Lassen: "they are planning to issue restraining orders against me,"

No, I’m not. At least not unless you decide to threaten my life, livelihood, or well-being in some way.

Quote Lassen: "they have written to authors and publishing houses and have contacted work places claiming to be representatives of Amazon.com"

No, I haven’t.

Quote Lassen: "and released information that they had to right to know on the internet."

I’m not entirely sure what that means, but I’m going to assume Lassen means the release of information that people had no right to know, and in response: No, I haven’t.

All the information published on my blog is information that was freely accessible in public venues on the internet to begin with, such as Amazon.com, Google cache, and Facebook.

Unfortunately Amazon closed the "at least one comment" loophole for Lassen’s reviews. Still, there’s at least one other transgression that Amazon overlooked in their mass deletion because Lassen "hit the wrong button". To make it even more convenient, all the plagiarised sources are visible on that page. (Hint, check the product description and compare it to Lassen’s first paragraph, then read the second paragraph of Mr. Tatham’s review, written ten days before Lassen’s.)

Why he felt the need to include my name at all is beyond me. But it gets better because Lassen made another comment responding directly to me (for context, here’s my original comment):

what saddens me is that you have no idea of what you are talking about and of course I disagree–you are a late comer and your information was fed to you by these people and then you went and did your research.
And Ann-Kat, the review of "I Spit On Your Grave" came two months of constant harassment from these people and it was the way I lashed back. I do not believe that you would have taken the abuse and taunts that I took as many as 20 times on a daily basis and it was ok for Kirkfield to go to my employer as a representative of Amazon and post his findings? I wonder how you would have reacted. I doubt you would have reacted the way Lambda Literary reacted (ignoring and wondering who these people were) when Erin Elway and Barbara Barclay overstepped all bounds by writing letters and saying how much they respected the organization. Give me a break–these are cutthroat and ruthless people who wanted a crucifixion and would do whatever it took to get it. Sure I lashed out bit how much is one person to take? Mea culpa? No way. And what about the letters they wrote to universities and publishing houses? And what about the smear campaign? You weren’t there, you came in three or four days ago with your self-righteousness and as you say, you don’t know me–you only know what these people have presented you with. They gave you the leads and you followed. I would love to see how you would have reacted. They overstepped every boundary of humanity. And have you noticed, Jason Kirkfield has nothing to say nor does E. Jacobs who admitted herself that this has gone too far. Since you mean to keep it going, so do I–just not here. You have new friends now–watch how they play ball and be careful, do not cross them.

This is my final comment–the show is all yours now

–Comment by Amos Lassen dated December 14, 2010 11:45PM

Again I’ve been having problems publishing a response on that blog, so again, I publish it here.

You are right, Mr. Lassen. I did my research. It doesn’t matter what was "fed to [me]" because I won’t eat anything unless I’ve smelt it first and I truly hoped that this whole thing was just a big misunderstanding.

I read every single post in that entire thread, I read every post on the Facebook fan page, and I even used Google cache and the Internet Archive when available.

And the result of that research was that you did, in fact, lift sections of content from other copyrighted sources to pad your own reviews. It wasn’t just once or twice or a few times. (Yes, I went through and checked links and cross-referenced them with the Amazon reviews still visible using the show reviews by comments link on Amazon.)

And I’ve yet to see you refute it. You talk around the issue with no explanations. You refuse to publish the Amazon forum link on your Facebook page or provide your supporters with the means to do their own research.

I’ve seen a few ask already where the quotes you post come from, why these people are doing what they’re doing, etc., and they receive no answers except more deflection. I’ve even seen a few of those posts disappear. In fact, you only seem to feed them a one-sided view of the story and you come out looking the victim.

Sure they may have badgered you for months (I’ll admit, I’ve seen some not-nice comments made about you and on some of your reviews thanks to Google cache) and you have every right to stand up for yourself, but you had opportunities to rise above it rather than stoop to their level (actually, in my opinion, far below it by some of the insults I’ve seen you throw around, and in such a public medium no less).

But, the issue was not whether these people harassed you or whether you harassed them, the issue was whether or not you plagiarised some of your reviews.

This is your online legacy, Mr. Lassen, this is the statement you’re making about yourself and your integrity. Only one question remains: Are you proud of this legacy?

I may be a late comer, but that means I’m able to gauge the situation without bias, removed from both you and your Amazon detractors. I have nothing to gain or lose from your undoing or your vindication. Consider that.

I’m not being self-righteous, just pointing out the situation as I see it. This entire mess could have been avoided had you not copied those other reviews in the first place (or even properly edited them after the fact).

By the way, I invite you and your supporters to visit my blog on the subject and point out anything you believe I got wrong in the write up. I do allow comments from both sides of this argument as long as they’re cordial, non-threatening, and the language is kept clean.

Since this whole fiasco makes me tired, and Mr. Lassen only speaks in circles, I’m done commenting unless Mr. Lassen cares to directly address the documentation I’ve published—perhaps point out anything that’s incorrect or actually refute the allegations of plagiarism.

Until then, let this be a cautionary tale to other reviewers. Learn from Lassen’s mistake: Don’t plagiarise no matter how tempted you are. It will make the original author unhappy and it will eventually make your legs tired from all the backpedaling you’ll be required to do.

Learn the right and wrong ways to use someone else’s words in your review. Right: explain why you’re including an excerpt of someone else’s review and give him credit (i.e. fair use). Wrong: copying and pasting without context or credit.

Recently, on the Amazon forums, I saw a thread titled “Plagiarism in a review?” This caught my attention because I, too, had been plagiarised by an Amazon reviewer. But before I could chip my two cents in, I was swept up on the roller coaster ride of reviewer infamy.

Back in November, reviewers discussed having been plagiarised by a certain individual, and two and two eventually added up to Amos Lassen, a well-known (former) Top 50 Amazon reviewer.

When the discussion started, it was merely a glowing ember, but now it’s a raging inferno. What was the fuel? A threatening email from Lassen in response to a request that he remove the infringing work from his review; shortly after, a Facebook fan page supporting Lassen went up with negative comments directed at those writing on the Amazon forum thread.

If you’re not inclined to read through all thirty-something pages of the thread, then I’d direct you to pages 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, and 32 where posters published side-by-side comparisons of Lassen’s reviews with their original sources. If even reading those pages seems like too much work, allow me to highlight a few transgressions.

Sources from which Lassen plagiarised includes other Amazon reviews, the product descriptions, personal websites and blogs, and even more well-known sources such as IMDb and the New York Times.

And although Amazon deleted Lassen’s reviews, which may lead some to erroneously believe the evidence has been completely purged (so no harm, to foul), some of the damning reviews are still available* since they had at least one comment.

* Edited 12/16/10: Amazon fixed that little loophole (it seems for Lassen specifically as it still works for other reviewers’ deleted reviews with one or more comments).

There is still one loophole if you wish to see the Amazon reviews yourself: In a Google search, use [site:amazon.com "amos lassen"]–remove the brackets–and click on the “Cached” link that appears. As of now there are 30,000+ pages stored.

Unfortunately, over time they will drop from Google’s cache since Amazon removed the actual links, but one can hope it doesn’t happen for a good long while. Still, I urge you to search quickly if you wish to see for yourself.

(Click images for full views.)

I’ve highlighted the original, by R. Gawlitta, in pink and the copy+pasted version, by Lassen, in yellow. You can even see where he accidentally copied the “(a” (it seems he’s not big on proofreading either). Now, unless Lassen was R. Gawlitta in a previous lifetime, then what he’s done equals plagiary.

Not enough, how about an example from the New York Times?

(Click on images for full views.)

But then, maybe Lassen was also Neil Genzlinger in that previous lifetime, in which case this wouldn’t equal plagiary either. He might have suspected as much because after being called on it, Lassen edited his review to be less obvious, but obviously not enough.

He even plagiarised a review from sources on the same page:

(Click on image for full view.)

The first source from which Lassen plagiarised was Amazon’s product description (highlighted in pink), but that wasn’t enough. He also plagiarised the reviewer preceding him, Michael E. Tatham (highlighted in green). Lassen’s transgressions are highlighted in yellow and purple respectively.

By the way, you are welcome to compare and contrast for yourselves as the review is still up because Lassen “hit the wrong button”, which published it as a child’s review, and it was overlooked in the mass deletion. I don’t know how long Amazon will allow it to stay, though, now that it’s been brought to light.

And a couple other original reviewers weren’t thrilled when alerted:

(Click image for full view.)

A few are crying foul on Amazon because they’ve booted such a wonderful pillar of the GLBT and Judaic artistic communities (mostly the authors who’ve had a book reviewed by Lassen) and that makes me sad. Sad because those people are directing their anger toward the wrong entity (Amazon wouldn’t delete over 3,000 reviews and revoke the reviewing privilege of one of it’s Top 50 reviewers without some damning evidence) and sad because Lassen should have set a much better example.

Lassen should have just said mea culpa and righted his wrongs—it would have been better all around—instead, he became nasty.

In response to being revealed as a plagiariser, Lassen wrote a review entitled “I Spit On Your Grave” directed at those who exposed him—a review which included these choice words: “The only good thing about this is wishing that all of them would die as soon as possible and the rest of the world could give a collective spit on each and all of their graves. I am sure God is crying over the way these creations turned out and we are crying for having had to deal with them.”

(Click the image for the full size view)

Called one accuser an evil, disgusting reprehensible piece of sh*t:

(Click the image for full size view.)

And mocked another accuser’s product choices:

(Click the above images for full views.)

To which I say: at least Jason Kirkfield reviews those “bunnies, turtles, and truckers(sic)” with integrity using only his own words and proper attribution when necessary.

To further his cause, some of Lassen’s supporters have insinuated that those who’ve exposed him as a plagiarist are homophobic anti-Semites.

Having read through all 33 pages of the forum thread (I simply could not tear my eyes away), I noted not one person expressing any dislike or hatred for Lassen’s sexual preference or religious leaning. The only thing I got was that they went after him because he stole other peoples’ words and claimed them as his own—it’s an unfortunate coincidence that most of his reviews were for homosexual and Jewish art.

I have to wonder if Lassen studied politics because he is quite adept at deflection. On the Facebook support page, rather than post entire quotes from the Amazon thread in their context or provide a full link to the Amazon thread, he only publishes the most inflaming parts. And even those who ask where and why these people would do this are given a deflection, but not an answer.

One follower even challenges Lassen’s accusers to publish the proof directly on the Facebook page:

Unfortunately, anyone who seeks to provide the supporters with links to outside sources which may incriminate Lassen have their posts immediately deleted. (It’s probably a safe bet that a link to my little ol’ blog won’t make it there either.)

(Click images for full size views.)

Throughout this entire Lassen-is-above-reproach tirade, it’s not been suggested by Lassen’s followers that someone else should simply start writing proper, honest Amazon reviews for homosexual and Jewish art to replace what’s been removed. However, it’s been suggested by those who’ve exposed Lassen’s farce and therefore, by default, is an unacceptable suggestion.

As a customer, this is maddening. I rely on Amazon’s review system to help me make informed buying decisions and I expect the reviews I’m reading to be those of the independent reviewer. If I wanted the New York Times opinion of a book or an IMDb user’s opinion of a movie, I’d visit those respective sites. When the reviewers aren’t honest on Amazon, trust in the system is lost. And when consumers lose trust in the system, it’s a bad thing all around from Amazon to the publishers to the authors themselves.

As a reviewer, this is maddening. I write to help others make informed decisions and I work hard to craft my opinions in a way that others will, I hope, understand. When someone takes those words to pass off as his own, it’s like he’s stealing a bit of who I am. Others may feel differently about their work, and that’s all right, but they should put up their reviews with an appended stamp saying free for the taking. Until then, people should keep their grubby mitts off of someone else’s work. It’s simply ethical, not to mention common courtesy.

All of those who rely on Lassen for reviews should seek out those from whom Lassen stole words and see what those people recommend because they are the true reviewers, the true (untarnished) pillars of the community.

Update: Amos Lassen Admits Plagiarism, Calls It Paraphrasing

Kindle books, according to Mashable, are outselling hardcovers. Over the last three months there was a 30% margin and in the last month there was a 44% margin. Granted, these numbers are skewed since Amazon doesn’t reveal all of its data (i.e. how many books were actually sold) nor does it compare to how many paperback books were sold.

The article, however, did get me thinking about why ebook sales might be on the rise. One thing that comes to mind is the intangible nature of the ebook. With a traditional hardcover, or even paperback, the customer will need to pick it up, hold it in her hands, sniff at it a little bit, figure out where she’s going to put it, and then flip it over to see the heart-stopping amount of money she’ll need to dish out for it.

On the flip side, ebooks are ephemeral. There’s no need to make room for it and it’s (usually) much cheaper than the hardcover equivalent. For the price of one hardcover, you can grab two ebooks (assuming that it’s not a bestseller or renowned author). Plus, it’s easy.

With the click of a couple buttons, sometimes only one, you have a new book waiting to be read. It’s so easy to be caught up in the whirlwind of buying that you don’t realize how many books you’ve just bought…and it all goes back to ebooks having an ephemeral quality. With physical books, you can look at the stacks and say to yourself, I think I’ve picked up too many books, but with ebooks, you don’t have that. Or am I wrong?

I’m curious, if you’re an ebook reader, why? Do you appreciate the books taking up less space? Do you appreciate the blazing speed at which you can have the book and start reading? Is it something else altogether?

Some are claiming that Stephenie Meyer (and her publisher) is merely out for more money, while her defenders are quick to point out that the book is being released for free on her website in tandem with the hardcover release and a dollar of the proceeds is being donated to the American Red Cross.

Well, I’m the voice in the middle. I believe the release of this book is geared by both financial gain and altruism. I see your eyebrows raising and mouths dropping. How is such a thing possible? Those two things are complete opposites, you say. Ah ha! But they are not. They are two sides of the same coin.

First, let’s look at the altruism:

“There was one thing I asked for: since this story had always been an extra for me, and was meant to be released with the Guide, I wanted to be able to offer it to my fans for free. […] starting at noon on June 7th until July 5th, it will also be available online at www.breetanner.com.

One other aspect of this release is the plan to give a more important gift to people who really need it. One dollar of each book purchased in the US from the first printing will be donated to the American Red Cross for their relief efforts in Haiti and Chile and other parts of the world where people are in great need.” – Stephenie Meyer (*Seth really should discover the wonderment of permalinks.)

Now, let’s take a closer look:

“…starting at noon on June 7th until July 5th…”

The book will only be available for 28 days…online. I don’t know many people who will want to read a 200 page book on their computer screen—and on a deadline—or who would want to print a 200 page book from their inkjet printer.

Best case scenario for people who haven’t discovered FinePrint or iPrint, even if they opt for duplex printing, is 100 loose sheets of paper to wrangle. But hey, it’s still free…as in beer. Chances are, most people will opt to buy the hardcover simply so they’ll have something physical they can hold.

Plus, what happens when the deadline’s up and word of mouth has spread about how supremely awesome The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner is? You guessed right, those people will likely purchase a copy. Or what if the book is so supremely awesome that the reader wants his own copy to love and cuddle with at night? Right again, that reader will purchase a copy.

But…but…the profit is going to a charity, so it’s all good right? Sort of.

“One dollar of each book purchased in the US from the first printing will be donated to the American Red Cross…”

Did you catch it? The embedded small print? OK, let’s have a look at it as taken from the Bree Tanner website:

“…donating to the American Red Cross International Response Fund $1 for every hardcover book sold from the first printing in the U.S. Donations will continue until all first printing copies have been sold or at the end of a two-year period from the initial publication date, whichever is the first to occur.”

After the first printing is done, or two years if the first printing isn’t sold off right away, no more donations. We have to look at this from two angles: 1) How many books will be printed in that first round? and 2) How much is the actual profit margin?

I’ve heard the number 1,000,000 thrown around and that’s no number to sneeze at; people in need can definitely use the help. However, what if the first printing is only 250,000 books? Or what if the profit margin per book sold is somewhere around $3? That means for ever $1 they donate, $2 goes into someone’s pocket.

(Please note that I yanked those numbers out of thin air. I do not know what the actual profit margin for this book will be, merely illustrating a point.)

Looked upon objectively, there is financial gain in being altruistic. I’m not upset about it in the least—a girl’s gotta eat. But it’s always important to look at the situation objectively before hopping on a particular (extremist) bandwagon. What this all comes down to is more clever marketing.

Now a few parting words as an aside: If you’re an author, publicist, or publisher, you should be taking notes. The genius behind the Twilight Saga’s marketing is staggering.

According to the Vintage release, Nightlight follows a “pale and klutzy” girl named Belle Goose, who moves to Switchblade, Oregon, and meets Edwart Mullen, a “super-hot computer nerd with zero interest in girls.” The vampire-obsessed Belle becomes convinced Edwart is one of the undead after witnessing events she considers otherworldly (”Edwart leaves his Tater Tots™ untouched at lunch! Edwart saves her from a flying snowball!”). [EW]

Found via Jezebel: Sparkle-Vamp goes Geek in Twilight Spoof (hint: read the comments.)