New Lee & Miller novel will follow the Ethshar pay-as-you-go model
David Tate
Universe(tm) novel _Fledgling_ will be published online, incrementally,
based on receipts from readers of the already-published chapters.
Those of you who have been reading Lawrence Watt-Evans's latest two
Ethshar novels will be familiar with the basic model; I haven't read
closely enough to spot any significant differences in the
implementation.
Details are available at http://www.korval.com/fledgling/.
Disclaimer: I don't work for SRM Publishing, Ms Lee and Mr. Miller
don't know me, I didn't do it, I wasn't there, and besides I was
insane.
David Tate
gr...@durendal.org
David Tate wrote:
> Sharon Lee and Steve Miller have announced that their new Liaden
> Universe(tm) novel _Fledgling_ will be published online, incrementally,
> based on receipts from readers of the already-published chapters.
> Those of you who have been reading Lawrence Watt-Evans's latest two
> Ethshar novels will be familiar with the basic model; I haven't read
> closely enough to spot any significant differences in the
> implementation.
>
> Details are available at http://www.korval.com/fledgling/.
I never did like these pay as you go schemes. I'll happily pay the $25
for the trade paperback, even though it won't be available for some
long unknown time.
Greg Weeks
Wayne Throop
: gr...@durendal.org
: I never did like these pay as you go schemes. I'll happily pay the $25
: for the trade paperback, even though it won't be available for some
: long unknown time.
Huh? I thought that's exactly what they proposed: you donate 25 dollars
now, they send you the trade paperback some long unknown time later.
There's also some risk that the book never gets published, but then
there's always *some* risk a book won't get published, isn't there?
I mean... they won't send the korval enforcers out and make you read it
as a serial or anything, near as I understand what they propose.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Damien Sullivan
>:: http://www.korval.com/fledgling/
>
>: gr...@durendal.org
>: I never did like these pay as you go schemes. I'll happily pay the $25
>: for the trade paperback, even though it won't be available for some
>: long unknown time.
>
>Huh? I thought that's exactly what they proposed: you donate 25 dollars
>now, they send you the trade paperback some long unknown time later.
That's not pay-as-you-go, nor is it LWE's model. They'll post a
chapter, then they'll post another one if $300 in donations accumulates.
If enough people are interested you could read the whole thing for free,
or for chucking in a buck or two. OTOH, if an obsessed fan with money,
you can give them $300 a week and guarantee the book comes out for
everyone.
-xx- Damien X-)
Wayne Throop
: That's not pay-as-you-go, nor is it LWE's model. They'll post a
: chapter, then they'll post another one if $300 in donations accumulates.
That's all incidental flim-flam. The fact remains, you give 25 dollars,
and at a later date, you get a book. From the viewpoint of the donor,
one who doesn't want to read each chapter of the draft as things go
along, that's that. Why does it matter that drafts are being posted?
Is that any different than drafts going back and forth to the editor, if
you aren't reading them either way? In either case, there's a set of
people who read the draft, and you aren't one of them.
Sure, you're buying a pig in a poke, where the pig hasn't been
empoked yet. But "normal" books evaporate along the way sometimes;
the only difference is the probability of said evaporation.
I mean, if you bought an advance copy of OJs book, you're SOL.
Well, maybe you can get your money back. Or maybe you should
view it as a narrow escape.
But I digress. Thing is, you pay now, you get the book later.
The rest is irrelevant from the viewpoint of somebody not reading
the draft and willing to accept a bit of risk.
( Of course, my copy of The Spriggan Mirror still hasn't hit my mailbox.
Not really complaining; I'm just saying. Short track record. )
Walter Bushell
wrote:
> Sure, you're buying a pig in a poke, where the pig hasn't been
> empoked yet. But "normal" books evaporate along the way sometimes;
> the only difference is the probability of said evaporation.
> I mean, if you bought an advance copy of OJs book, you're SOL.
> Well, maybe you can get your money back. Or maybe you should
> view it as a narrow escape.
--> ;) OTOH, I think the people who put up money, wanted the book.
--
Divided we stand!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>( Of course, my copy of The Spriggan Mirror still hasn't hit my mailbox.
> Not really complaining; I'm just saying. Short track record. )
Yeah. I'm sorry about that.
I'm not sure about _The Vondish Ambassador_, but if I do more serials
that way, I'll do a privately-printed limited first edition that'll go
to donors, _then_ sell it to Wildside or FoxAcre or whoever. These
delays outside my control are just not acceptable.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The second issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
A new Ethshar novel is being serialized at http://www.ethshar.com/thevondishambassador1.html
htn963
gr...@durendal.org wrote:
> David Tate wrote:
> > Sharon Lee and Steve Miller have announced that their new Liaden
> > Universe(tm) novel _Fledgling_ will be published online, incrementally,
> > based on receipts from readers of the already-published chapters.
> > Those of you who have been reading Lawrence Watt-Evans's latest two
> > Ethshar novels will be familiar with the basic model; I haven't read
> > closely enough to spot any significant differences in the
> > implementation.
> >
> > Details are available at http://www.korval.com/fledgling/.
>
> I never did like these pay as you go schemes.
Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
--
Ht
Wayne Throop
: To me, authors who start these reading-subscription schemes debase
: their art, and readers which too much time on their hands who
: accommodate them are pathetic.
So... do authors that accept advances from publishers debase their art?
If not, why does accepting the advance from readers make it worse?
Or are you objecting to the method used to organize multiple
reader payments towards the advance? If so, what in particular
is debasing about the web and paypal? Or use of paypal pathetic?
Mike Schilling
> I mean, if you bought an advance copy of OJs book, you're SOL.
Who says there's no God?
Dan Swartzendruber
Yes, I'd like the answer to that question myself. As someone who
contributed to the Spriggan Mirror, I guess I'm pathetic.
Mike Schilling
The original readers of _Tom Sawyer_ and _Roughing It_ were evidently
pathetic too.
Justin Alexander
> Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
> schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
> hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
Yeah. For example, look at those hacks Charles Dickens and Mark Twain.
...
(Pardon me, I'll just be over here rolling my eyes at another bout of
Htn963 idiocy.)
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
htn963
> In article <11651...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
> > : "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net>
> > : To me, authors who start these reading-subscription schemes debase
> > : their art, and readers which too much time on their hands who
> > : accommodate them are pathetic.
> >
> > So... do authors that accept advances from publishers debase their art?
> > If not, why does accepting the advance from readers make it worse?
If you don't see the distinction between authors hedging their
bets at their readers' expense rather than their publishers, and
releasing works piecemeal rather than in whole form where editorial
reviews and revision can be implemented, then there's no point
continuing this conversation.
> > Or are you objecting to the method used to organize multiple
> > reader payments towards the advance? If so, what in particular
> > is debasing about the web and paypal? Or use of paypal pathetic?
Hardly. I think Paypal is great and use it all the time.
> Yes, I'd like the answer to that question myself. As someone who
> contributed to the Spriggan Mirror, I guess I'm pathetic.
If it'll make you feel better, I think what you're doing is
pathetic. From what I've seen of your posts over the years, I'm sure
the rest of what you do is well-considered.
--
Ht
htn963
> The original readers of _Tom Sawyer_ and _Roughing It_ were evidently
> pathetic too.
Yup, they just happen to be lucky by having writers with enough
talent to transcend this tawdry method of publication. Better to
speculate for financial rather than aesthetic gains.
--
Ht
htn963
Justin Alexander wrote:
> htn963 wrote:
> > Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
> > schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
> > hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
>
> Yeah. For example, look at those hacks Charles Dickens and Mark Twain.
You're comparing Watt-Evans and Lee & Miller to Dickens and Twain?
Now, I know for sure your critical apparatus is entirely out-of-whack.
>
> ...
>
> (Pardon me, I'll just be over here rolling my eyes at another bout of
> Htn963 idiocy.)
Does this mean you won't be sending me a Christmas card this year?
Oh, wait, I already got one from Harriet Klausner, so I guess it'll
do.
--
Ht
Mike Schilling
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> The original readers of _Tom Sawyer_ and _Roughing It_ were evidently
>> pathetic too.
>
> Yup, they just happen to be lucky by having writers with enough
> talent to transcend this tawdry method of publication.
"Writers" plural?
rap...@netscape.net
htn963 wrote:
> Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > In article <11651...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
> > > : "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net>
> > > : To me, authors who start these reading-subscription schemes debase
> > > : their art, and readers which too much time on their hands who
> > > : accommodate them are pathetic.
> > >
> > > So... do authors that accept advances from publishers debase their art?
> > > If not, why does accepting the advance from readers make it worse?
>
> If you don't see the distinction between authors hedging their
> bets at their readers' expense rather than their publishers, and
> releasing works piecemeal rather than in whole form where editorial
> reviews and revision can be implemented, then there's no point
> continuing this conversation.
Your issue is that people may donate and then not get anything (or
worse? a half completed book) ? Adding a refund rule may be
appropriate if the chapter rate drops below say one a month (25%
'nominal' speed) or just if the book isn't completed within a set time
(say 2 years).
LWE (on his blog) has said that he won't start another one until The
Vondish Ambassador is finished and that in the unlikely event that the
money stops coming in completely (rather than just a serious drop in
chapter rate), he would consider other options.
Dan Swartzendruber
rap...@netscape.net says...
Correct. I would also point out that LWE was crystal clear up front
(even for the first such book) how it worked, and why he was doing it
this way (it was the only way we were going to see another Ethshar
book.) No one can possibly claim they didn't know what they were
getting into, so accusing him of trying to hedge his bets is unfair, to
say the least.
Wayne Throop
: If you don't see the distinction between authors hedging their
: bets at their readers' expense rather than their publishers, and
: releasing works piecemeal rather than in whole form where editorial
: reviews and revision can be implemented, then there's no point
: continuing this conversation.
First of all, the readers need not pay any attention to the posting
of the draft of the book. So that distinction is moot. Second of all,
either the publisher voluntarily assumes risk, or the reader does.
Why is readers volunteering evil, or exploitative, specifically?
What evil results from readers voluntarily financing something
they want? What if the readers voluntarily financed a publisher, who
then paid the money as an advance; would that be exploitation?
If not, then the solution is simple. Just incorporate a publishing company,
and solicit investment, the dividend to be a copy of the book. Of course,
the prospectus for this company can incorporate a preliminary draft, so
that the investors know what they are paying money for.
There. Now a publisher's investors are assuming the risk. Happy?
Wayne Throop
: You're comparing Watt-Evans and Lee & Miller to Dickens and Twain?
No, simply pointing out that you claimed they debased their art.
He used them as an example, because not many people will agree that
they debased their art, and so many readers will come to disagree with you.
erilar
> > I never did like these pay as you go schemes.
>
> Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
> schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
> hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
Personally, I have NO interest in long-spaced-out serials; I don't
watch them on TV and complain about 2-parters in other shows. I have
enough waiting between whole books in a series as it is; reading a book
one little bit at a time, particularly on my computer instead of in my
lap, is quite out of the question.
--
Mary Loomer (aka Erilar)
----------------------------------------
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tatige Unwissenheit.
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
(There's nothing worse than ignorance in action.)
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
"htn963" <htn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I think Paypal is great and use it all the time.
Do you like the scams based on it, too?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>> In article <11651...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
>> > : "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net>
>> > : To me, authors who start these reading-subscription schemes debase
>> > : their art, and readers which too much time on their hands who
>> > : accommodate them are pathetic.
>> >
>> > So... do authors that accept advances from publishers debase their art?
>> > If not, why does accepting the advance from readers make it worse?
>
> If you don't see the distinction between authors hedging their
>bets at their readers' expense rather than their publishers, and
>releasing works piecemeal rather than in whole form where editorial
>reviews and revision can be implemented, then there's no point
>continuing this conversation.
Please note that the final published version will be professionally
edited. I'm not stupid or egotistical enough to think I don't need
editing. About 5% of the gross on _The Spriggan Mirror_ went to the
freelance editors I hired: the same line editor who'd edited about
half the previous books in the series when she worked at Del Rey, and
the same copy editor who'd done most of the Ethshar novels at Del Rey
and both of them at Tor.
Jim Hetley
htn963 wrote:
>
> Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
> schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
> hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
>
Sounds to me as if you don't think a pair of tested authors, working in
their own franchise universe, will produce a professional product. On
time, and under budget.
Or maybe you don't think authors earn their pay?
gr...@durendal.org
htn963 wrote:
> gr...@durendal.org wrote:
> > I never did like these pay as you go schemes.
>
> Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
> schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
> hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
It has nothing to do with debasing their art for me. I just can't stand
getting part of the story and not being able to finish it because of
events outside of my control.
Greg Weeks
John Schilling
wrote:
>htn963 wrote:
He thinks that authors produce Art, which transcends Money, because the
Muse drives them so. And then afterwards some money changes hands to
cover the costs and hopefuilly a share goes to the author to reward his
genius and his work.
Which is bullshit and everyone from LWE to RAH has explicitly stated
that it is bullshit, but the traditional publishing model allows people
to continue believing it. Step one is, "Author writes book", all the
stuff with the money comes afterwards, so barring mental telepathy there
is no way to know the author was motivated by Money rather than Art,
barring a time machine there is no way to know whether the author would
have dropped the whole thing if he had known in advance there wouldn't
be any money in it.
Well, you could always *ask* the author, but that's no fun. Easier to
just imagine that the Muse has driven him to Commit Art, which he would
have done no matter what, and then some money changed hands to get the
thing printed and distributed.
The model LWE has come up with for the latest Esthar novels, repudiates
that fantasy, even for people who cover their ears and hum real loud when
the author is talking motive and finance. You see the author getting
paid and creating art. Then you see the author *not* getting paid and
leaving the half-created art incomplete. Art is subservient to Money,
and the world is gone awry.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Mike Schilling
>
> He thinks that authors produce Art, which transcends Money, because
> the Muse drives them so. And then afterwards some money changes
> hands to cover the costs and hopefuilly a share goes to the author to
> reward his genius and his work.
>
> Which is bullshit and everyone from LWE to RAH has explicitly stated
> that it is bullshit,
I'm not sure where Samuel Johnson fits into that continuum.
> but the traditional publishing model allows
> people to continue believing it. Step one is, "Author writes book",
> all the stuff with the money comes afterwards,
Other than the contract and the advance, which come first.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Schilling wrote:
>
>> He thinks that authors produce Art, which transcends Money, because
>> the Muse drives them so. And then afterwards some money changes
>> hands to cover the costs and hopefuilly a share goes to the author to
>> reward his genius and his work.
>>
>> Which is bullshit and everyone from LWE to RAH has explicitly stated
>> that it is bullshit,
>
>I'm not sure where Samuel Johnson fits into that continuum.
Before me and Heinlein.
There's an anecdote I've encountered a couple of times -- daughter of
successful author comes home from school and asks father for help with
English assignment, which is to say why the student thinks an author
wrote a particular story.
Story's author is a friend of student's father; she KNOWS why he wrote
the story, but she doesn't think the teacher will accept "The rent was
late" as an answer.
htn963
> On 3 Dec 2006 08:06:37 -0800, "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> >> In article <11651...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
> >> > : "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net>
> >> > : To me, authors who start these reading-subscription schemes debase
> >> > : their art, and readers which too much time on their hands who
> >> > : accommodate them are pathetic.
> >> >
> >> > So... do authors that accept advances from publishers debase their art?
> >> > If not, why does accepting the advance from readers make it worse?
> >
> > If you don't see the distinction between authors hedging their
> >bets at their readers' expense rather than their publishers, and
> >releasing works piecemeal rather than in whole form where editorial
> >reviews and revision can be implemented, then there's no point
> >continuing this conversation.
>
> Please note that the final published version will be professionally
> edited. I'm not stupid or egotistical enough to think I don't need
> editing. About 5% of the gross on _The Spriggan Mirror_ went to the
> freelance editors I hired: the same line editor who'd edited about
> half the previous books in the series when she worked at Del Rey, and
> the same copy editor who'd done most of the Ethshar novels at Del Rey
> and both of them at Tor.
There's still the concern whether editing will be done as
thoroughly and conscientously for materials already paid for, issued
out, and read, but I assume all your subscribers will get the final
edited version (whether in electronic or hardcopy form) for no
additional charge, yes?
At least you were able to address this editorial issue directly,
something markedly absent from all the other responses (and occasional
blather) I've read from your supporters so far.
--
Ht
htn963
erilar wrote:
> In article <1165161997.5...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I think Paypal is great and use it all the time.
>
> Do you like the scams based on it, too?
Now, now, my dear lady, I would not go so far as to call these
authors scammers, just a bit too full of themselves perhaps.
As for buying and selling the usual, vulgar physical goods with
Paypal, I've only had one bad transaction out of several hundreds over
several years, and that was promptly reimbursed by Paypal one week
after I filed a claim.
--
Ht
Justin Alexander
htn963 wrote:
> Justin Alexander wrote:
> > htn963 wrote:
> > > Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
> > > schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
> > > hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
> >
> > Yeah. For example, look at those hacks Charles Dickens and Mark Twain.
>
> You're comparing Watt-Evans and Lee & Miller to Dickens and Twain?
No. You'll notice, for example, how I completely failed to compare
Watt-Evans and Lee & Miller to Dickens and Twain.
I did, however, note that Dickens and Twain both followed a
pay-as-you-go subscription method of delivering larger works to their
readers. I did so in order to counter your claim that any authors who
followed a pay-as-you-go subscription method for delivering larger
works to their readers were debasing their art and that anyone who
chooses to "accommodate" those works (presumably by reading and/or
paying for them) are "pathetic".
Your inability to read English for comprehension is noted. It explains
some of your behavior, but not all of it.
Justin Alexander
> > > I never did like these pay as you go schemes.
> >
> > Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
> > schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
> > hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
>
> Personally, I have NO interest in long-spaced-out serials; I don't
> watch them on TV and complain about 2-parters in other shows. I have
> enough waiting between whole books in a series as it is; reading a book
> one little bit at a time, particularly on my computer instead of in my
> lap, is quite out of the question.
I agree with you. Fortunately, in both instances, we can simply wait
until the serial has been completed and then read it or watch it all at
once. One of the great side-benefits of DVD technology was the
proliferation of TV series being collected in easy-to-watch packages.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2006 08:06:37 -0800, "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Please note that the final published version will be professionally
>> edited. I'm not stupid or egotistical enough to think I don't need
>> editing. About 5% of the gross on _The Spriggan Mirror_ went to the
>> freelance editors I hired: the same line editor who'd edited about
>> half the previous books in the series when she worked at Del Rey, and
>> the same copy editor who'd done most of the Ethshar novels at Del Rey
>> and both of them at Tor.
>
> There's still the concern whether editing will be done as
>thoroughly and conscientously for materials already paid for, issued
>out, and read, but I assume all your subscribers will get the final
>edited version (whether in electronic or hardcopy form) for no
>additional charge, yes?
If their donations came to $5.00 or more, yeah. The e-book edition
went out months ago; the hardcopy (for $15 or more) has hit several
delays but should be out in a couple of weeks.
The edited final draft of _The Spriggan Mirror_ is more than 8,000
words longer than the version originally posted on the web. I admit
the copy edit wound up being a bit rushed, but it was still reasonably
thorough, and the line-edit was as extensive as I usually got at Del
Rey.
htn963
> : "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net>
> : You're comparing Watt-Evans and Lee & Miller to Dickens and Twain?
>
> No, simply pointing out that you claimed they debased their art.
> He used them as an example, because not many people will agree that
> they debased their art, and so many readers will come to disagree with you.
You and these "many readers" are assuming that their works didn't
suffer to any degree from this method. And there's no need for you to
assist Justin Boy, as I enjoy baiting rude, obnoxious punks.
--
Ht
Mike Schilling
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>>> "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net>
>>> You're comparing Watt-Evans and Lee & Miller to Dickens and Twain?
>>
>> No, simply pointing out that you claimed they debased their art.
>> He used them as an example, because not many people will agree that
>> they debased their art, and so many readers will come to disagree
>> with you.
>
> You and these "many readers" are assuming that their works didn't
> suffer to any degree from this method.
Since no one's tried to make that claim even plausible, why whould they?
Wayne Throop
: I enjoy baiting rude, obnoxious punks.
How do you restrain youself from following up your own posts?
rol...@gmail.com
through this thread and answer every point individually. Call me
indolent *g*
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Other than the contract and the advance, which come first.
Well...no; not always. Authors do sometimes write stuff for the fun of
it, or because They Have To -- and those projects are very often done
on spec. I just finished writing a book for which I had no contract;
it's now with my agent, and hopefully I'll find a publisher for it.
Even if I don't, I'm happy to have written it.
"Happy to have written it," however, doesn't pay the rent. Authors are
not fairy creatures who live on dewdrops and moonlight. Nor is anyone
likely to give me a hamburger today because I have a book that's making
the rounds. Which is why authors strive to achieve (in a perfect
world, multi-book) contracts on the strength of a proposal and sample
chapters.
In the case of _Fledgling_, and as many people in this thread have
pointed out -- no one's required to read it in serial. The Lytaxin
Irregulars aren't going to come to your front door and shake you down
for donations. We are, however, going to write the book. We Have To,
in order to get from Point A (the end of _I Dare_) to Point B (the
beginning of the oft-requested, "next book after _I Dare). We're
offering the serialization to Those Who Are Interested (tm). Frankly,
I'm stunned at the response we've gotten so far; I didn't expect such a
uproar. Yes, we're taking donations. Money is a great motivator (see
...not fairy creatures, above), and it gives Those Who Are Interested
(tm) a feeling of connection to the project.
We have been clear (at least I think we have) that what's going to be
posted is a DRAFT. A DRAFT is, yanno, unedited. Should there ever
actually be a hard copy (and we've tried to make it plain that this is
by no means assured), it will be an Edited Book, which is the thing
that happens after a DRAFT (or two, or three, or six...).
...I think that covers it.
Thanks, Mike.
Sharon Lee
------
www.korval.com
Mike Schilling
> Mike, I'm using your post as a springboard, 'cause I'm not going to go
> through this thread and answer every point individually.
I bet you would for a big enough advance :-)
Keith Stokes
>; I haven't read
>closely enough to spot any significant differences in the
>implementation.
The only significant difference that I notice is that LWE makes a
commitment to providing a copy of the book to those that contribute at
least $25, if the book is completed.
The Miller & Lee model says "should one ever be published."
I will probably support them regardless. I like them and their work.
Keith
Pete Granzeau
That's exactly why I used to hate serialized novels in the SF
magazines (which I quit reading maybe 25 years ago). I never knew if
I'd be able to find next month's issue or not, as the store I
generally went to would get maybe three copies, and they'd all be gone
in a day or two.
Kat R
That happens to me all the time with comics and serial novels whether
subscribed or not. Something comes up (like a lack of funds/time) and I
stop reading. Then when I have the resources to go back, I am too far
behind to catch up, have other interests to pursue, or have forgotten
the story so completely, I never remember to go look it up.
I never did get to the end of Ocean. Phooey.... I liked that comic.
--
Kat Richardson
Greywalker (Roc, 2006)
Website: http://www.katrichardson.com/
Bloggery: http://katrich.wordpress.com/
Justin Alexander
You're trying to bait yourself?
J Moreno
> If their donations came to $5.00 or more, yeah. The e-book edition
> went out months ago; the hardcopy (for $15 or more) has hit several
> delays but should be out in a couple of weeks.
Hmn, I should be on your list of $15 or more, and don't remember getting
any notice/copy of an ebook -- on the other hand it might have hit my
filters, so not biggie. But out of curisoity, how did the ebook go out
-- as a notice to download or an inline email?
--
JM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
David Goldfarb
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>There's an anecdote I've encountered a couple of times -- daughter of
>successful author comes home from school and asks father for help with
>English assignment, which is to say why the student thinks an author
>wrote a particular story.
>
>Story's author is a friend of student's father; she KNOWS why he wrote
>the story, but she doesn't think the teacher will accept "The rent was
>late" as an answer.
Dorothy Heydt has posted the anecdote many times -- the father
and daughter were Poul and Astrid Anderson.
--
David Goldfarb | "Speak softly, drive a Sherman tank
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | Laugh hard, it's a long way to the bank."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- TMBG
James Nicoll
David Goldfarb <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <s5p8n2l5mdm5uut4a...@news.rcn.com>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>There's an anecdote I've encountered a couple of times -- daughter of
>>successful author comes home from school and asks father for help with
>>English assignment, which is to say why the student thinks an author
>>wrote a particular story.
>>
>>Story's author is a friend of student's father; she KNOWS why he wrote
>>the story, but she doesn't think the teacher will accept "The rent was
>>late" as an answer.
>
>Dorothy Heydt has posted the anecdote many times -- the father
>and daughter were Poul and Astrid Anderson.
You know what's missing from that story? The author could
have written any number of stories to pay the rent but they wrote
one particular one. Why did they write that one and not one of the
others?
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Mike Schilling
> In article <el38sb$jcr$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> David Goldfarb <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>> In article <s5p8n2l5mdm5uut4a...@news.rcn.com>,
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>> There's an anecdote I've encountered a couple of times -- daughter
>>> of successful author comes home from school and asks father for
>>> help with English assignment, which is to say why the student
>>> thinks an author wrote a particular story.
>>>
>>> Story's author is a friend of student's father; she KNOWS why he
>>> wrote the story, but she doesn't think the teacher will accept "The
>>> rent was late" as an answer.
>>
>> Dorothy Heydt has posted the anecdote many times -- the father
>> and daughter were Poul and Astrid Anderson.
>
> You know what's missing from that story? The author could
> have written any number of stories to pay the rent but they wrote
> one particular one. Why did they write that one and not one of the
> others?
Presumably because he knew that one would sell quickly.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
You're on the list for a hard copy, so you didn't get the e-book --
it's either/or, not both. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.
It went out as an e-mail attachment.
I am informed, incidentally, that the copies for donors will be
drop-shipped to me directly from the printer some time this month -- I
still don't have an exact date. I'll then e-mail everyone on my list
to make sure the shipping address is current, to find out whether you
want your copy autographed, etc.
Since Wildside chose to cut the back-up short story I had intended to
include (it's in the ebook), "Sirinita's Dragon," I'll be doing that
as a chapbook and enclosing it, as well, if all goes according to
plan. There may be complications on that, though, as I've
commissioned three illustrations for it, and as of last night only one
of the three was actually completed. This may result in giving folks
the option of a text-only chapbook immediately, or an illustrated one
later. We'll see how it works out.
Michael Stemper
>: "htn963" <htn...@verizon.net> I enjoy baiting rude, obnoxious punks.
>
>How do you restrain youself from following up your own posts?
A hit! A palpable hit!
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.
Michael Stemper
>htn963 wrote:
>> You and these "many readers" are assuming that their works didn't
>> suffer to any degree from this method. And there's no need for you to
>> assist Justin Boy, as I enjoy baiting rude, obnoxious punks.
>
>You're trying to bait yourself?
He's the master...
htn963
> On 3 Dec 2006 14:35:01 -0800, "Jim Hetley" <canis_...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> >htn963 wrote:
>
> >> Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
> >> schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
> >> hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
>
> >Sounds to me as if you don't think a pair of tested authors, working in
> >their own franchise universe, will produce a professional product. On
> >time, and under budget.
I don't think a draft -- which may or may not be completed
depending on economics, NOT the writer' talents and efforts -- with no
guarantee of a follow-up edited copy is a professional product.
> >Or maybe you don't think authors earn their pay?
I think many good authors don't get paid enough and sympathize
with them, but they earn their pay for a completed, polished work, just
like everyone else. A baker doesn't earn his pay for a half-baked loaf
of bread.
> He thinks that authors produce Art, which transcends Money, because the
> Muse drives them so. And then afterwards some money changes hands to
> cover the costs and hopefuilly a share goes to the author to reward his
> genius and his work.
Heh, I'm not that idealistic about art, so stop assuming you know
completely what goes on in my mind, you know-it-all asshole. That's
not what I think. What underlies my satisfaction with this
pay-as-you-go publishing scheme is just consumer-oriented pragmatism.
> Which is bullshit and everyone from LWE to RAH has explicitly stated
> that it is bullshit, but the traditional publishing model allows people
> to continue believing it. Step one is, "Author writes book", all the
> stuff with the money comes afterwards, so barring mental telepathy there
> is no way to know the author was motivated by Money rather than Art,
> barring a time machine there is no way to know whether the author would
> have dropped the whole thing if he had known in advance there wouldn't
> be any money in it.
The traditional publishing model, whether it perpetuates this myth
or not -- and by no means do I think it can't be improved vastly upon
-- does serve a useful function in winnowing out the slush.
> Well, you could always *ask* the author, but that's no fun. Easier to
> just imagine that the Muse has driven him to Commit Art, which he would
> have done no matter what, and then some money changed hands to get the
> thing printed and distributed.
On the flip side of what I said earlier about pragmatism, you'd be
suprised how many writers write because they have to write. And there
is something to be said and certain tacit codes to assume in getting
paid for dealing in intangibles.
> The model LWE has come up with for the latest Esthar novels, repudiates
> that fantasy, even for people who cover their ears and hum real loud when
> the author is talking motive and finance. You see the author getting
> paid and creating art. Then you see the author *not* getting paid and
> leaving the half-created art incomplete. Art is subservient to Money,
> and the world is gone awry.
And this is your Brave New World for publishing, is it? Putting
stories to entertain to the level of research grant applications?
--
Ht
David Tate
>
> I don't think a draft -- which may or may not be completed
> depending on economics, NOT the writer' talents and efforts -- with no
> guarantee of a follow-up edited copy is a professional product.
Certainly not a *finished* professional product, no.
But that begs the question -- why do you think it "debases their art"
for artists to allow their unfinished worsk to be seen? Is there
something obscene or shameful about unfinished art?
I've been following along, trying to figure out what it is that you
object to, and I can't. At first I thought you simply didn't
understand that the finished product would be revised and
professionally edited. But that correction didn't cause you to say
"oh, never mind", so that must not have been it.
The remaining candidates seem to me to be:
1. Works produced this way will tend to be inferior to works produced
in the other usual ways.
2. Allowing unfinished works to be seen is
evil/déclassé/nekulturny/whatever.
3. Accepting money in advance when there's a chance the work will never
be finished is immoral.
If it's #1, I don't see any evidence for that. The editing process is
virtually identical, in the end.
If it's #2, nobody is forcing you to peek. If you think it unseemly,
well, ok. Whatever.
If it's #3, I assume you are just as vehemently against writers'
advances?
If it's none of the above, could you make it a little more clear what
you *do* mind?
> I think many good authors don't get paid enough and sympathize
> with them, but they earn their pay for a completed, polished work, just
> like everyone else.
See above about advances.
For that matter, what "everyone else" are we talking about? I can
think of quite a few jobs where payment (or firm commitment of payment)
precedes the work. The "research grant" model you snarked at, for one.
Clearly, not "just like everyone else".
> The traditional publishing model, whether it perpetuates this myth
> or not -- and by no means do I think it can't be improved vastly upon
> -- does serve a useful function in winnowing out the slush.
People who know they like LWE's work or the Ethshar series don't *need*
anyone to winnow slush for them in this case. Why pay for a service
you know you don't require?
David Tate
Wayne Throop
:: them, but they earn their pay for a completed, polished work, just
:: like everyone else.
: "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org>
: For that matter, what "everyone else" are we talking about? I can
: think of quite a few jobs where payment (or firm commitment of
: payment) precedes the work. The "research grant" model you snarked
: at, for one. Clearly, not "just like everyone else".
Yeah, I was going to say, the practices of salaried employment, legal
retainers, estimates, and nonrefundable deposits are all evil? If only
I knew, when I graduated college, that I had been trained to debase my
engineering art for a salary which I receive before the work is polished
and complete... I was even told I shouldn't continue to work on the
project if my employers, who were subscribing to my incremental
performance, stopped paying me. Oh, the embarrassment. I was led
astray I tells ya, it's not my fault!
And really, aren't we *all* to blame for this moral decay?
David McMillan
Hmm. Well, they already have the payment mechanism set up....
Hm. Rasfw posters who could make a living getting paid for their pithy
commentary. I nominate James Nicoll and Sea Wasp. Any others? :D
David McMillan
> Mike, I'm using your post as a springboard, 'cause I'm not going to go
> through this thread and answer every point individually. Call me
> indolent *g*
>
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Other than the contract and the advance, which come first.
>
> Well...no; not always. Authors do sometimes write stuff for the fun of
> it, or because They Have To -- and those projects are very often done
> on spec. I just finished writing a book for which I had no contract;
> it's now with my agent, and hopefully I'll find a publisher for it.
> Even if I don't, I'm happy to have written it.
>
> "Happy to have written it," however, doesn't pay the rent. Authors are
> not fairy creatures who live on dewdrops and moonlight. Nor is anyone
> likely to give me a hamburger today because I have a book that's making
> the rounds. Which is why authors strive to achieve (in a perfect
> world, multi-book) contracts on the strength of a proposal and sample
> chapters.
>
> In the case of _Fledgling_, and as many people in this thread have
> pointed out -- no one's required to read it in serial. The Lytaxin
> Irregulars aren't going to come to your front door and shake you down
I dunno, some of that bunch are pretty rough customers. :)
> for donations. We are, however, going to write the book. We Have To,
> in order to get from Point A (the end of _I Dare_) to Point B (the
> beginning of the oft-requested, "next book after _I Dare). We're
> offering the serialization to Those Who Are Interested (tm). Frankly,
WANT. <ahem> That is, I want to know What Happened Afterwards (I also
want someone to point out to Daav the running gag in ID, to wit that
every time someone ran into him, the first words out of their mouths
were "Where have you BEEN?", but I'm not holding out much hope for
that). I'm going to take a wild leaping guess here and hypothesize that
Fledgling is Theo's story, since that seems like the one piece missing
to get us to After-ID.
> I'm stunned at the response we've gotten so far; I didn't expect such a
> uproar. Yes, we're taking donations. Money is a great motivator (see
> ....not fairy creatures, above), and it gives Those Who Are Interested
> (tm) a feeling of connection to the project.
Feh. It's a tempest in a teapot. Those who hate the idea were
probably never going to buy the book anyway, even if published normally.
The rest of us have been given full disclosure, there's no attempted
fraud of any kind happening here, and we're free to buy, or not, under
full caveat emptor rules. Me, I'm buying. I'll probably buy the serial
as it comes out, and regularly kick myself for not holding out until I
could have The Whole Darn Thing in hand. But that's me.
James Nicoll
who sees the for-pay stuff is Andrew (and whoever else at Bookspan decides
to look at the reports -- at least, I think any editor can read all
reports).
Wait: people who buy either of the tshirts are buying my words.
Jim Hetley
htn963 wrote:
> I think many good authors don't get paid enough and sympathize
> with them, but they earn their pay for a completed, polished work, just
> like everyone else. A baker doesn't earn his pay for a half-baked loaf
> of bread.
>
I've seen plenty of half-baked loaves on the bookstore (or library)
shelves. Even major publishers seem to skip the editing and
copy-editing stages...
And sometimes pay doesn't seem to wend its way back to the author. I
believe that both Twain and Dickens (previously mentioned in this
thread) had that problem.
Jim
htn963
> htn963 wrote:
> >
> > I don't think a draft -- which may or may not be completed
> > depending on economics, NOT the writer' talents and efforts -- with no
> > guarantee of a follow-up edited copy is a professional product.
<Ok, Dave, I'll go over it again, since you did try to ask nicely
(though I did sense a hint of patronizing schoolmasterism now and then
which you might want to work on), and you are the dastardly perpetrator
of this thread from whence I happened to express my humble, little
opinion in an off-the-cuff remark to incurr the vituperative wrath of
personages high and low.>
> Certainly not a *finished* professional product, no.
While we're playing semantics, I can just as well say that
something that isn't finished can't be a product.
>
> But that begs the question -- why do you think it "debases their art"
> for artists to allow their unfinished worsk to be seen? Is there
> something obscene or shameful about unfinished art?
I don't care about that seeing business. Like at bistros (though
I admit I haven't eaten out for awhile), I don't care whether I see the
chefs preparing the meals or not, as long as they're tasty and filling.
Well, ok, with the horror stories about hygiene I've seen on news
reports, it may be better to see.
Nope, I don't find anything obscene or shameful about unfinished
art or seeing artists create art along the way. It's the piecemeal,
stop-and-go approach to creating art, contingent on receiving payments,
that doesn't sit well with me.
> I've been following along, trying to figure out what it is that you
> object to, and I can't. At first I thought you simply didn't
> understand that the finished product would be revised and
> professionally edited. But that correction didn't cause you to say
> "oh, never mind", so that must not have been it.
Actually, I wasn't aware that Mr. Watt-Evans' works would be
professionally edited upon completion, and that did alleviate my
distaste for this method, as implemented by him at least. (However, you
might have noticed that Lee & Miller has not guaranteed that their work
would be professionally edited). To paraphrase him, I am not stupid or
egotistical enough to modify (or mollify shall we say) my views upon
receiving updated facts.
I will also note that as the person directly on the receiving end
of my criticism, he has been much more gracious and informative than
all his supporters combined, and my respect for him as a person has
increased, this scheme notwithstanding.
Ok, before I hurl from this love-fest, let's continue...
>
> The remaining candidates seem to me to be:
>
> 1. Works produced this way will tend to be inferior to works produced
> in the other usual ways.
> 2. Allowing unfinished works to be seen is
> evil/déclassé/nekulturny/whatever.
> 3. Accepting money in advance when there's a chance the work will never
> be finished is immoral.
>
> If it's #1, I don't see any evidence for that. The editing process is
> virtually identical, in the end.
Oh, come now, you, one of the more fastidious people here, don't
see any disadvantages? Aside from my remark that there would be less
incentive to edit a work as well and thoroughly that has been
serialized, I can readily think of other ways in which writing can
suffer from this method:
1) Writer develops a block, but can't take a break and has to
write whatever crap he can to fill this month's paid-for installment;
2) Writer is seized with feverish inspirations and brilliant ideas
and wants to put them down, but not enough money comes in for him to
act upon, and the moment tragically passes;
3) Writer resorts to monotonous cliffhangers to keep the
subscribers hooked, or overwrites. Yes, this happened to Dickens and
many other "greats", and mind you, they were working at a time with
markedly different publishing conditions. I haven't heard anyone else
trott out examples of great art done by this method in this century or
the last;
4) Writer is overtly and subtly influenced by his subscribers to
alter his work not in line with his original plan;
5) Unity. You will agree that this element, first promulgated by
the Greeks, is crucial to many good books, yes? Unity suffers by this
piecemeal, pay-as-you-go method.
> If it's #2, nobody is forcing you to peek. If you think it unseemly,
> well, ok. Whatever.
Nah. See above.
>
> If it's #3, I assume you are just as vehemently against writers'
> advances?
Nope. Advances are made for whole works.
> If it's none of the above, could you make it a little more clear what
> you *do* mind?
I have tried. Happy now?
> > I think many good authors don't get paid enough and sympathize
> > with them, but they earn their pay for a completed, polished work, just
> > like everyone else.
>
> See above about advances.
>
> For that matter, what "everyone else" are we talking about?
> I can think of quite a few jobs where payment (or firm commitment of payment)
> precedes the work. The "research grant" model you snarked at, for one.
> Clearly, not "just like everyone else".
Everyone who puts out a product, unless you happen to think
authoring is more analogous to services, especially as those contracted
by the professionals, who may encompass those who actually do concrete,
useful works, and the various wasteful parasites.
> > The traditional publishing model, whether it perpetuates this myth
> > or not -- and by no means do I think it can't be improved vastly upon
> > -- does serve a useful function in winnowing out the slush.
>
> People who know they like LWE's work or the Ethshar series don't *need*
> anyone to winnow slush for them in this case. Why pay for a service
> you know you don't require?
Even established writers can and do continue to write slush. And
how much more tempting and easier it is to slip (consciously or not)
into slush where one already has an audience, and a paid for one to
boot. But I confess I haven't read LWE's works yet (he is on my
reading list) then and now to access whether this method has had a
markedly deleterious effect on him, so I'm just stating this concern
generally.
--
Ht
htn963
> htn963 wrote:
>
> > I think many good authors don't get paid enough and sympathize
> > with them, but they earn their pay for a completed, polished work, just
> > like everyone else. A baker doesn't earn his pay for a half-baked loaf
> > of bread.
> >
>
> I've seen plenty of half-baked loaves on the bookstore (or library)
> shelves. Even major publishers seem to skip the editing and
> copy-editing stages...
True. Practical results sometimes don't conform to our
contractual ideals, but that doesn't mean we have to voluntarily
contract for less.
> And sometimes pay doesn't seem to wend its way back to the author. I
> believe that both Twain and Dickens (previously mentioned in this
> thread) had that problem.
Good point. This method can screw the authors as well as the
readers, albeit payment is more certain in this age of electronic
verifications. IIRC, Richard Burton (the explorer) collected the
entire subscription for his translation of the Arabian Nights before
starting work (and then he proceeded to crib flagrantly from a previous
translation). This, to me, is at least better than the piecemeal
method, or else we risk the danger of just having him issued 101 or 201
Tales from the Arabian Nights.
--
Ht
htn963
Justin Alexander wrote:
> htn963 wrote:
> > Justin Alexander wrote:
> > > htn963 wrote:
> > > > Same here. To me, authors who start these reading-subscription
> > > > schemes debase their art, and readers which too much time on their
> > > > hands who accommodate them are pathetic.
> > >
> >
> > You're comparing Watt-Evans and Lee & Miller to Dickens and Twain?
>
> Watt-Evans and Lee & Miller to Dickens and Twain.
>
> I did, however, note that Dickens and Twain both followed a
> pay-as-you-go subscription method of delivering larger works to their
> readers. I did so in order to counter your claim that any authors who
> followed a pay-as-you-go subscription method for delivering larger
> works to their readers were debasing their art and that anyone who
> chooses to "accommodate" those works (presumably by reading and/or
> paying for them) are "pathetic".
>
> Your inability to read English for comprehension is noted. It explains
> some of your behavior, but not all of it.
You are not worth comprehending. But fun to play with as you
regularly go off the rails like a hyper-caffeinated chimp.
--
Ht
htn963
> rol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'm stunned at the response we've gotten so far; I didn't expect such a
> > uproar. Yes, we're taking donations. Money is a great motivator (see
> > ....not fairy creatures, above), and it gives Those Who Are Interested
> > (tm) a feeling of connection to the project.
>
> Feh. It's a tempest in a teapot.
Indeed, it is just that with lil' ol' me and my objection. So
move on folks, nothing else to see.
--
Ht
Justin Alexander
Hmm... So either you're admitting that you were deliberately trolling
or you're claiming that your just PRETENDING to be ignorant and stupid
in order to cover up the fact that you were ACTUALLY being ignorant and
stupid.
Either way, it doesn't speak very highly for you.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
> Oh, come now, you, one of the more fastidious people here, don't
>see any disadvantages? Aside from my remark that there would be less
>incentive to edit a work as well and thoroughly that has been
>serialized, I can readily think of other ways in which writing can
>suffer from this method:
>
> 1) Writer develops a block, but can't take a break and has to
>write whatever crap he can to fill this month's paid-for installment;
My experience of writer's block is that you can't write _anything_,
not even crap, when it hits. Fortunately, I'm not very prone to it.
If I were to hit a serious block, though, I'd take time off -- post an
apologetic announcement, offer refunds to anyone who feels cheated,
and take a break for a couple of weeks.
I believe Diane Duane did something along those lines at one point, in
fact.
> 2) Writer is seized with feverish inspirations and brilliant ideas
>and wants to put them down, but not enough money comes in for him to
>act upon, and the moment tragically passes;
Oh, but one doesn't wait to write, or post the stuff the instant it's
written! I try to stay several chapters ahead. I'd written five
chapters of _The Vondish Ambassador_ before posting the first one, and
am in the middle of writing Chapter Sixteen while having just posted
Thirteen. I'd be farther ahead if I didn't have another book with a
January 1st deadline.
I started with four chapters of _The Spriggan Mirror_, and finished
writing the first draft in mid-August, but didn't get Chapter
Twenty-Eight posted until early October. Which meant I could tackle
the rewrite and get the editor involved before readers had seen the
ending.
> 3) Writer resorts to monotonous cliffhangers to keep the
>subscribers hooked, or overwrites.
This might be a possibility in some cases, yeah. Readers do ask me
about this. As far as I can tell, though, I'm writing the same way I
always have.
> 4) Writer is overtly and subtly influenced by his subscribers to
>alter his work not in line with his original plan;
Is this necessarily a bad thing?
> 5) Unity. You will agree that this element, first promulgated by
>the Greeks, is crucial to many good books, yes? Unity suffers by this
>piecemeal, pay-as-you-go method.
Not really a concern. It takes me six to eight months to write a
novel in any case. It takes me six to eight months to serialize one.
Not a big difference there.
> Even established writers can and do continue to write slush.
Sure, but in this case I'm writing long-planned novels in a series
that's been running for twenty years. People should have a pretty
good idea what they're getting. In the case of _The Spriggan Mirror_,
the outline _had_ been accepted by Tor; then they changed their minds.
I think you have some legitimate concerns. I think there are writers
who probably shouldn't try the serial route. However, I have noticed
that all the serials I know of by professional novelists are doing
novels that _continue existing series_, which, it seems to me,
minimizes several of these issues. The backgrounds are established,
the authors have already demonstrated their ability to write this
particular material, the readers have a pretty good idea what they're
getting.
And we're all writers who are comfortable with writing from an
outline, and constructing the story in a fairly linear fashion.
(Well, I know Don, Sharon, Steve, and I are; I've never discussed
craft with Diane Duane, and I don't know Brandon Sanderson at all.)
There are writers who can't function that way, but we aren't them.
There are stories I'd never try to write as serials, but the Ethshar
stories are so easy and familiar for me that I don't have a problem
with doing them this way.
So -- it's not the right model for every writer or every story, there
are indeed potential problems, but I think it's a good way to go in
some cases, including mine.
David McMillan
Or it's just the one his Muse handed him when he pushed the "I need a
story, NOW" button.
David McMillan
> In article <c8Sdnfz-XN5KZOjY...@giganews.com>,
> David McMillan <spam...@skyefire.org> wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> rol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Mike, I'm using your post as a springboard, 'cause I'm not going to go
>>>> through this thread and answer every point individually.
>>> I bet you would for a big enough advance :-)
>> Hmm. Well, they already have the payment mechanism set up....
>>
>> Hm. Rasfw posters who could make a living getting paid for their pithy
>> commentary. I nominate James Nicoll and Sea Wasp. Any others? :D
>>
> Strictly speaking, I already do. It's just that the only person
> who sees the for-pay stuff is Andrew (and whoever else at Bookspan decides
> to look at the reports -- at least, I think any editor can read all
> reports).
>
> Wait: people who buy either of the tshirts are buying my words.
Yeah, but I was thinking of posters whose postings are so erudite,
entertaining, or Just Plain Gotta-Read itema, who set up a tip jar
rather like the "Spriggan Mirror" thing, and would only grace the
newsgroup with the wit and/or wisdom once the jar hit a certain level.
For added fun, they could subdivide the tip jar for separate threads.
I was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but I bet there's a few posters who could
make more than pocket change that way. At least for a while.
Wayne Throop
1: ) Writer develops a block, but can't take a break and has to write
: whatever crap he can to fill this month's paid-for installment;
I think you're confused. The deal he, he *won't* write if there's *no* money.
Not that he *will* write if there *is*. Indeed, LWE warned that it was
possible he'd be forced to delay posts (though that didn't eventuate).
: 2) Writer is seized with feverish inspirations and brilliant ideas and
: wants to put them down, but not enough money comes in for him to act
: upon, and the moment tragically passes;
If the money doesn't come in, he doesn't *post*. Nothing was said about
him not writing. And indeed, LWE stayed some small bit ahead.
: 3) Writer resorts to monotonous cliffhangers to keep the subscribers
: hooked, or overwrites.
Ah! Finally, a valid concern. But then, professionally contracted
works can fall prey to the same thing. Book series might minimize it,
but it still can occur.
: 4) Writer is overtly and subtly influenced by his subscribers to alter
: his work not in line with his original plan;
And this is somehow a bad thing? What if he subtle and influential
subscribers have good ideas? Not that it *couldn't* be bad, but
I see no particular reason it must be, nor non-artful.
: 5) Unity. You will agree that this element, first promulgated by the
: Greeks, is crucial to many good books, yes? Unity suffers by this
: piecemeal, pay-as-you-go method.
So only works the author sits down and writes beginning to end
in one sitting can be Great Art, and everything else is debased?
Look, I've never heard of a writer doing a book all in on sitting
(not even Asimov), and most authors describe getting feedback on
partly completed works, even traditionally published. So again,
not a problem of the subscription process.
So let's see. A one for five batting average, and that one seems
most unlikely in this model, since the constituency in the actual
cases in hand are already hooked.
: Advances are made for whole works.
So, if anybody does gets advances in increments, it's evil?
If anybody gets an advance for the first book of an trilogy, it's evil?
Further, from my perspective as a donator, I'm paying for a completed work.
I donate once, and the book eventually gets written. Just like
a publisher, gives an advance (most often but not always) once,
and the book eventually gets written.
Again, you are balking at a difference that makes no difference.
David Tate
> Actually, I wasn't aware that Mr. Watt-Evans' works would be
> professionally edited upon completion, and that did alleviate my
> distaste for this method, as implemented by him at least.
> David Tate wrote:
> > The remaining candidates seem to me to be:
> >
> > 1. Works produced this way will tend to be inferior to works produced
> > in the other usual ways.
[...]
> > If it's #1, I don't see any evidence for that. The editing process is
> > virtually identical, in the end.
>
> Oh, come now, you, one of the more fastidious people here, don't
> see any disadvantages? Aside from my remark that there would be less
> incentive to edit a work as well and thoroughly that has been
> serialized
I'm not sure I see why, given that the serial doesn't reflect on the
publisher of the edited version, whereas the printed book they produce
does.
>, I can readily think of other ways in which writing can
> suffer from this method:
>
> 1) Writer develops a block, but can't take a break and has to
> write whatever crap he can to fill this month's paid-for installment;
OK, I'll buy that.
> 2) Writer is seized with feverish inspirations and brilliant ideas
> and wants to put them down, but not enough money comes in for him to
> act upon, and the moment tragically passes;
This one seems unlikely; far more likely that he puts them down anyway,
then uses them elsewhere if the current project never gets paid for.
> 3) Writer resorts to monotonous cliffhangers to keep the
> subscribers hooked, or overwrites. Yes, this happened to Dickens and
> many other "greats", and mind you, they were working at a time with
> markedly different publishing conditions.
It's a reasonable concern. I'd be more worried about it if it didn't
seem clear that both Mr. Watt-Evans's readers and the Friends of Korval
are pretty much willing to put up the entire advance for the novels
sight-unseen. That may be gullible of them, but it tends to defuse
problems #1 and #3.
> 4) Writer is overtly and subtly influenced by his subscribers to
> alter his work not in line with his original plan;
I have no way of telling whether this is a net gain or loss. Since the
creative process is normally 100% invisible to me, why worry about it?
Knowing what's happening (if I knew) doesn't change my inability to
tell whether it's good, bad, or neutral for the final product.
> 5) Unity. You will agree that this element, first promulgated by
> the Greeks, is crucial to many good books, yes? Unity suffers by this
> piecemeal, pay-as-you-go method.
Well, that's why the whole thing gets edited -- somewhere between
"tightened up" and "rewritten" -- before the eventual book is
published.
[...]
> > If it's none of the above, could you make it a little more clear what
> > you *do* mind?
>
> I have tried. Happy now?
Yes, that makes it much more clear. Thank you.
On a separate subject:
> > > I think many good authors don't get paid enough and sympathize
> > > with them, but they earn their pay for a completed, polished work, just
> > > like everyone else.
> >
> > See above about advances.
> >
> > For that matter, what "everyone else" are we talking about?
> > I can think of quite a few jobs where payment (or firm commitment of payment)
> > precedes the work. The "research grant" model you snarked at, for one.
> > Clearly, not "just like everyone else".
>
> Everyone who puts out a product, unless you happen to think
> authoring is more analogous to services, especially as those contracted
> by the professionals, who may encompass those who actually do concrete,
> useful works, and the various wasteful parasites.
I think I can parse that.
My current line of work is to produce studies and analyses, and
occasionally software. The former are reasonably concrete, the latter
much more so. Generally there is a nice tangible product at the end,
which I can point to and say "that is what you bought".
But we always get firm commitment of payment up front. We don't do any
work without it, and if we were to do partial work and have the
customer stiff us, we certainly wouldn't finish it. I don't think
we're unusual in that regard.
I think "make it, then try to sell it" is a much rarer business model
than you think these days. Even those bakers of bread you refer to
have mostly been replaced by commercial bakeries who almost certainly
have orders for every loaf before it is baked.
(Of course, whether that is an appropriate business model for art is a
separate question. But it does mean that "just like everyone else" was
a bad choice of words.)
David Tate
Sea Wasp
Holy sheep. I wouldn't ever have expected to be mentioned in the same
breath as James in a category of THAT nature. I didn't think my
commentary was within ICBM range of as pithy or interesting as James'
usual input.
Thanks much!
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Sea Wasp
Heh. Paid for Usenet Posting. If only I could have gotten that gig
when I was younger...
Nah, not for me. That's an area in which I think the vigilant
pressure WOULD interfere with the product (not the case, for me, with
my fiction writing).
Now, what MIGHT be interesting is some sort of street performer
protocol that allowed people to "tip" for particularly
amusing/interesting posts. I suspect James could then start a new
retirement account.
David Goldfarb
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> Heh. Paid for Usenet Posting. If only I could have gotten that gig
>when I was younger...
There are in fact a number of places now that will pay you for
posting to blog comment threads. See discussion at
<http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008295.html#008295>
--
David Goldfarb |"Never argue with a pedant over nomenclature.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | It wastes your time and annoys the pedant."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Lois McMaster Bujold
David Goldfarb
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>If I were to hit a serious block, though, I'd take time off -- post an
>apologetic announcement, offer refunds to anyone who feels cheated,
>and take a break for a couple of weeks.
>
>I believe Diane Duane did something along those lines at one point, in
>fact.
Chapter Five of _The Big Meow_ was originally supposed to go up
in, I think, July; it finally got posted a couple of weeks ago.
For myself, I don't care that much -- I paid my money, I have faith
that I'll get to see the material eventually. (Likewise, I have
no problem waiting for my copy of _The Spriggan Mirror_.)
--
David Goldfarb |"The Uncertainty Principle allows particles
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | to travel faster than light over short distances."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Stephen Hawking
Robotech_Master
> That's all incidental flim-flam. The fact remains, you give 25
> dollars, and at a later date, you get a book. From the viewpoint
> of the donor, one who doesn't want to read each chapter of the
> draft as things go along, that's that.
Also note that regardless of whether you pay or not, you'll still get
to read the book as it goes up. You can chip in a bit to support the
book, a lot to support the book more, and if it's at least $25 then
you'll get a copy of the book, too.
Diane Duane is using a similar model for The Big Meow, though her
chapters come out a good deal less frequently than "once a week."
It's also noteworthy that in the last two days or so, the amount of
donations has shot up to where the first five chapters are already
paid for. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire book was more than
paid for by the time the first chapter ever appears.
I've been wanting to know what the deal was with Theo Waitley for a
long time. Now the Waitley waiting is almost over.
--
Chris Meadows aka | WWW: http://www.terrania.us | Somebody
Robotech_Master | ICQ: 5477383 AIM: RoboMastr | help, I'm
robotec...@gmail.com | Skype, LJ-Gizmo: Robotech_Master | trapped in
robo...@eyrie.org | Yahoo: robotech_master_2000 | a sig file!
Robotech_Master
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The original readers of _Tom Sawyer_ and _Roughing It_ were
> evidently pathetic too.
And don't forget all those people who shelled out magazine
subscription fees to read Dickens's serialized stories...and who in
at least one notable instance were so "pathetic" that they mobbed the
incoming ship carrying the magazine issues.
It's just a new spin on an old model: if writers can self-publish (as
Lee and Miller did with their Liaden chapbooks when fans wanted what
pro publishers weren't willing to publish), why shouldn't they be able
to self-serialize also?
Robotech_Master
> 1) Writer develops a block, but can't take a break and has to
> write whatever crap he can to fill this month's paid-for
> installment;
These issues are one of the major reasons that the original source
material for this model (a whitepaper you can find if you search on
"Street Performer Protocol") suggests that it should be done only for
works that are already completed and can be held in escrow so that
people know they're not buying a pig in a poke.
That being said, Lee & Miller state on their website that they're
going to post one episode per week. Not "whenever it's done," but
expressly at least one per week. And the first five chapters are
already paid for. That's got to give them some incentive to make sure
that they're done on time--especially since they've got a month or so
in which to write. (On the other hand, Diane Duane's Big Meow comes
out every couple of months or so, and there was a big gap before the
most recent installment.)
Even so, there are a *lot* of serialized media that still manage to
tell great stories in a serialized format. Look at some of the
serious storyline-based webcomics out there. Some of them have been
going for years and told many exciting and well-realized stories.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:53:47 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Oh, but one doesn't wait to write, or post the stuff the instant it's
>>written! I try to stay several chapters ahead. I'd written five
>>chapters of _The Vondish Ambassador_ before posting the first one, and
>>am in the middle of writing Chapter Sixteen while having just posted
>>Thirteen. I'd be farther ahead if I didn't have another book with a
>>January 1st deadline.
>
>I'm curious, do you work from a detailed outline on something like
>this? Seems to me you might otherwise come up with a Better Idea in
>chapter 7 that really should have been set up in some way back in
>chapter 3, but that's a problem because chapter 3 has already been
>posted.
I work from a moderately-detailed outline -- not as detailed as some,
but enough that I have a pretty good idea where I'm going.
And sometimes it _would_ be nice to go back and rework something
that's already been posted. I revised Chapter Five of _The Vondish
Ambassador_ a few weeks after it was posted for exactly that reason.
So far, though, I haven't felt anything very drastic in that regard
was needed.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>On 4 Dec 2006 05:45:24 -0800, gr...@durendal.org wrote:
>
>>It has nothing to do with debasing their art for me. I just can't stand
>>getting part of the story and not being able to finish it because of
>>events outside of my control.
>
>Yeah, that's why I made my donation for Vondish Ambassador, but have
>not started reading it yet.
>
>To Lawrence, if you read this: is there a certain level of donation
>required to receive a hrd copy of the book when it is finished? Or do
>you just have to wait and see how well it does overall?
$25. It says on the "How It Works" page.
Jim Hetley
John wrote:
> I'm curious, do you work from a detailed outline on something like
> this? Seems to me you might otherwise come up with a Better Idea in
> chapter 7 that really should have been set up in some way back in
> chapter 3, but that's a problem because chapter 3 has already been
> posted.
>
I think I'd probably trip over this, if I tried to serialize something
I hadn't finished yet. I've swapped chapter order around in several
novels so far, after completing the first or even second draft, and
deleted a couple of chapters from the final version of THE WINTER OAK.
Added chapters to both DRAGON'S EYE and DRAGON'S TEETH...
Jim
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:12:25 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>To Lawrence, if you read this: is there a certain level of donation
>>>required to receive a hrd copy of the book when it is finished? Or do
>>>you just have to wait and see how well it does overall?
>>
>>$25. It says on the "How It Works" page.
>
>Rats, I think I only gave $20. Guess I should have read the details
>more carefully.
You can add another $5 at any time before it's done; I add up the
totals.
Mike Schilling
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:39:11 -0600, John <re...@newsgroup.please.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:12:25 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> To Lawrence, if you read this: is there a certain level of donation
>>>> required to receive a hrd copy of the book when it is finished? Or
>>>> do you just have to wait and see how well it does overall?
>>>
>>> $25. It says on the "How It Works" page.
>>
>> Rats, I think I only gave $20. Guess I should have read the details
>> more carefully.
>
> You can add another $5 at any time before it's done; I add up the
> totals.
You do math? I thought you were just one of those off the wall coffee
swilling, unshaven and depressed individuals who
dress funny and listen to emo.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>
>> You can add another $5 at any time before it's done; I add up the
>> totals.
>
>You do math? I thought you were just one of those off the wall coffee
>swilling, unshaven and depressed individuals who
>dress funny and listen to emo.
Naah. I don't drink coffee and I listen to Sarah McLachlan, instead.
Dan Swartzendruber
l...@sff.net says...
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:00:06 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> You can add another $5 at any time before it's done; I add up the
> >> totals.
> >
> >You do math? I thought you were just one of those off the wall coffee
> >swilling, unshaven and depressed individuals who
> >dress funny and listen to emo.
>
> Naah. I don't drink coffee and I listen to Sarah McLachlan, instead.
besides, mike's conditions are not mutually exclusive :)
Mike Schilling
news:MPG.1fe7a90f...@news.lightband.com...
I disclaim all responsibility for those conditions:
>> jbit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I tend to be a math guy, it's what I do for
>>> a living. I have always tended to look at creative people as these off
>>> the wall coffee swilling, unshaven and depressed individuals who dress
>>> funny and listen to emo.
Which is not to deny Dan's point.
Robotech_Master
main "Storyteller's Bowl" style projects of which I am aware
(including yours, Lawrence).
http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=5922
I am also planning to discuss the issue on my Internet talk show, The
Biblio File, next Saturday afternoon, at 3 p.m. Eastern/12 Pacific
time. I would be delighted to have any of the participants in this
discussion phone in to participate in the round table.
My show can be found here:
You can phone in via ordinary phone (Pittsburgh number; long
distance/minutes charges may apply) or for free via Skype or
SIP-enabled VOIP applications such as SJPhone.
For instructions on using SJPhone, see
http://www.talkshoe.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=24&page=1
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Incidentally, I have just written an article considering the three
>main "Storyteller's Bowl" style projects of which I am aware
>(including yours, Lawrence).
>
> http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=5922
Don Sakers is doing one, too. See
http://www.readersadvice.com/mmeade/scatwlds/sponsor.html
Robotech_Master
> I am also planning to discuss the issue on my Internet talk show, The
> Biblio File, next Saturday afternoon, at 3 p.m. Eastern/12 Pacific
> time. I would be delighted to have any of the participants in this
> discussion phone in to participate in the round table.
>
> My show can be found here:
>
> http://terrania.us/biblio/
Just to follow up, I've just spoken with Diane Duane, author of _The
Big Meow_, and she's graciously agreed to join me on this show, if her
Internet connection permits.
Lynn Calvin
wrote:
>On 6 Dec 2006 12:50:12 -0800, htn963 <htn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> 1) Writer develops a block, but can't take a break and has to
>> write whatever crap he can to fill this month's paid-for
>> installment;
>
>These issues are one of the major reasons that the original source
>material for this model (a whitepaper you can find if you search on
>"Street Performer Protocol") suggests that it should be done only for
>works that are already completed and can be held in escrow so that
>people know they're not buying a pig in a poke.
<snip>
>
>Even so, there are a *lot* of serialized media that still manage to
>tell great stories in a serialized format. Look at some of the
>serious storyline-based webcomics out there. Some of them have been
>going for years and told many exciting and well-realized stories.
And there are other examples that have been stretched out over years, as
published novels.
The first five Amber books for example ... Serialized in magazines,
published as novels, but really one story arc.
--
Lynn Calvin
lca...@interaccess.com