The Nameless Horror

Publishing debates, the drinking game

Instructions: Have at least one bottle of something strong to hand. Open a blog post or news site article about some aspect of the publishing industry. If the article in question in any way refers to Amazon, make sure it’s a large bottle. For group play, take it in turns to read each sentence, comparing against the long list below. Winner is the last one still standing. For solo play, keep it up for as long as your eyes still function or concerned neighbors call the paramedics.

For extra challenge: Include the comments.

Rules:

Uses the phrase “70% royalties”: take a shot.

Uses any of the phrases “12.5%/20%/25% royalties”: take a shot.

If author royalties aren’t relevant to the subject at hand: take another.

Says “Amazon lowers prices” or a variant thereof: take a shot.

Says “Amazon will drive prices into the floor” or a variant thereof: take a shot.

If consumer pricing isn’t relevant to the subject at hand: take another.

References the DOJ suit and says publishers colluded to fix prices: take a shot.

If DOJ suit and price fixing aren’t relevant to the subject at hand: take another.

Says “Amazon is a monopoly”: take a shot.

Says “Amazon is not a monopoly”: take a shot.

Says “publishing is an oligopoly”: take a shot.

Says “publishing is not an oligopoly”: take a shot.

Dismissal of unexpressed fear of company/ies in monopoly position raising prices: take a shot.

Refers to media bias for/against Amazon: take a shot.

Claims that writer would have/has criticised Amazon/publishers as proof of lack of bias: take a shot.

Dismissal of self-published material as trash by definition: take a shot.

Dismissal of published writers happy with their terms as morons: take a shot.

Suggests Amazon will let KDP wither on the vine once publishing is dead: take a shot.

Suggests publishing is dead: take a shot.

Suggests publishing will never die: take a shot.

Says “I’m not taking sides” or a variant thereof: take a shot.

Says “on behalf of authors”: take a shot.

Makes claim not to be doing this (whatever this is) for themselves: take a shot.

Says that “more writers than ever are making money”: take a shot.

Mentions personal money earned from publishing/self-publishing when money earned isn’t relevant to the subject at hand: take a shot.

Mentions personal sales volumes from publishing/self-publishing when sales volumes aren’t relevant to the subject at hand: take a shot.

Mentions either of those things while simultaneously “not taking sides” or “not doing this for themselves”: take another.

Uses either of those things as a stick to beat other writers: finish the bottle.

Reminder writer “shares their numbers” when this isn’t relevant to the subject at hand: take a shot.

Reference to writer being a lone/rare voice of reason: take a shot.

Implies self-publishing is an underground movement: take a shot.

Does so while simultaneously talking about how much money can be made from it: take another.

Says “Stockholm Syndrome”: take a shot.

Uses the word “revolution” in reference to self-publishing except in historial context: take a shot.

Suggests “readers will decide”: take a shot.

Says “restrictive contracts”: take a shot.

Says “unconscionable”: take a shot.

Says writer could be spending their time better by writing books: take a shot.

Addition of “and making money by self-publishing them”: take another.

Tells their readers to stop reading and get back to writing: take a shot.

Readers ignore advice and comment at length anyway: take another.

Writer returns a day later with another lengthy piece on a similar subject: crack open a fresh bottle.

Note: While I’ve tried to cull all the usual suspects from these arguments, I’m sure I’ve missed plenty. By all means send additional suggest extras via @nameless_horror