Trying to see ahead through the eclouds... (was NEW PUBLISHER seeks feedback)
William Palmer
> br...@outskirtspress.com (OutskirtsPress.com) wrote in message news:<b285024d.0211...@posting.google.com>...
> The 2% I mentioned in my previous post includes those fields, Sylvia.
> The fact that I referred to them an novelists is a matter of
> semantics, but doesn't change the fact that people who are paid for
> their writing fall into an extreme, extreme minority. For the
> remainder, pursuing digital publishing is sometimes an appealing
> alternative to, say, languishing unread and exhibiting bitterness over
> usegroups.
I will grant this. Things are changing in the publishing
world, though we have quite a few posters in writing groups
who are print-world types through-and-through and choose to
continue to act as though nothing important at all has
occurred in publishing as a result of the coming of the net.
Of course, that hide-bound mentality means that they harbor
the print-world contempt for "vanity press" and insist that
no respectable piece of writing can ever be self-published.
I certainly disagree. Nonetheless, I have to add the
caveat that the smoke still has not cleared regarding the
best route to follow in net publishing. And I certainly
agree with the warnings some posters issued earlier on
this thread: With no reader recognition and no marketing
plan, ebook self-publishers are very likely throwing their
money away if they pay someone $1,500 or whatever to
publish their work. After all, there are a ton of self-
publishers selling books on the net right now--did you
ever buy any of them? Or do you still like to go to
a bookstore where you can thumb through the book you
are thinking about buying? Even so, I believe the
natural state for writers is a self-published one.
After all, if you look at the history of printing, you
will see that publishers came into being because most
writers could not afford their own printing presses,
and then later the press owners and other investors
spawned an entirely separate business, that of the
publisher. Those who wish to challenge me on this
are advised to read THE COMING OF THE BOOK: THE
IMPACT OF PRINTING 1450-1800 by Lucien Febvre and
Henri-Jean Martin. While it is clear enough the way
the power of publishers became so entrenched, writing
is not about printers and publishers, at least that's
how I see things. It is about readers and writers.
Any entity coming between them should be viewed with
suspicion. Still, I am under no illusion that the
centuries-old grip publishers have on the writing
profession will disappear overnight. But with the
net making the cost of printing/publishing so cheap,
it is certainly possible that the traditional publishing
model could in fact fade away or morph into something
where the writers have far more power over their own
professional destinies than they ever could hope for
in the traditional print world.
By the way, despite the fact that many posters
claimed to have thrown in the towel regarding their
aspirations for their future in net publishing when
Steven King announced he was getting out of it,
that statement by Mr. King did not trouble me.
After all, what a book-sales mega-star like
Mr. King might consider a "successful book,"
would probably provide enough income to support
thirty other writers of more modest spending
habits, for at least one year. Unless you feel
you need to spend like a Steven King, you should
not be dissuaded by his conclusion that net
publishing was not worth the fuss because it
could not at this time bring him enough revenue.
a.g.b-p.
>
> Brent
> http://OutskirtsPress.com
>
>
>
> Sylvia <Syl...@HarpyCastle.net> wrote in message ws:<3DC06F77...@HarpyCastle.net>...
> > "OutskirtsPress.com" top-posted, messing up the line of attributions,
> > and wrote:
> > >
> > > Granted, some of them are scams, but not all of them. I know because I
> > > started a publishing company out of my love for books and the English
> > > language. Digital, subsidy, and self-publishing are all viable
> > > alternatives to traditional publishing. It depends upon the situation.
> > > There are over 25 million writers in the United States, and only 2% of
> > > them are paid novelists.
> >
> > Ooooh! Oooooh! Let *me* say it this time!!!
> >
> > Ahem.
> >
> > Cite, please.
> >
> > > So, writers don't get paid. Novelists do.
> >
> > <waiting for roars of laughter to subside> What bullshit. Tell that to
> > the journalists, copywriters, non-fiction book writers, technical
> > writers, speech writers, etc. world wide who write for a living.
> >
> > ==
> > Sylvia (Golly, that felt good)
DEATH AND BLACK METAL
The net means you have to choose what you read on the net very, very,
very carefully.
An essay on democratization of information sources in black metal:
http://www.anus.com/metal/zine/index.html#editorial
On 2 Nov 2002 12:16:10 -0800, willia...@prodigy.net (William
Palmer) wrote:
-I-
Ambient, noise, electronica reviews
http://www.anus.com/music/
Death, black and heavy metal reviews
http://www.anus.com/metal/
Metal Links
http://www.metalhaus.com/
Underground Metal Community
http://bbs.anus.com/
http://www.hessian.org/
Politics & Society
http://www.necrocapitalist.com/
-I-
JOHN DARNIELLE AND RAHUL JOSHI ARE COWARDS
Steve Kudlak
I will quote this message entire rather edit it.
Sorry if that causes pain to anyone. If there is
a problem please email me.
Yes, the print world, especially before zines was
very strange, giggle I worked in it for awhile.
Note it is primarily novelists who get saddled with
the vanity press problem. For example I worked
for Recreational Computing way back when for
awhile. Things like Dr. Dobb's Journal and Recreational
Computing came out of a small grass roots movement
related to that other big success of hippydom The Whole
Earth Catalog. But these things were an indication
that yes people have often seized the power of the
press and indeed started something. The people who
did these things thought they were real and they got
the world to go along. They didn't ask to be published
by Harcourt, Brace & World (now that dates me;)
How to proceed is a good question. I think the zine
model works pretty good. Instead of big publishers
or vanity presses DIY is a pretty good way to go.
The DIY theme (although it was not called that)
has a tradition many centuries old.
As I said before I think paper+electronic is a way
to go. The electronic world has the advantage in
that it has always been a bit more open. IN fact the
Internet which was called the ARPANET when I
started on it (dating myself again;) had a lot of things
done by RFCs. RFC means Request For Comments,
someone would float an idea of how things should
go. They would write this down and it would get
floated around. People would comment on it and
some idea of how to proceed would be worked
out. Now I admit if you were at or affiliated with
the "three lettered places" (MIT,CMU, ISI, SRI...)
you had a great deal more chance of being taken
seriously, but overall lots of people had influence.
And one it is still pretty decentralized and there is
still a lot of room for individual action.
This is important...There are a whole lot of things
that should be done to keep the euniverse open
and available. To make sure it doesn't get too
over run by various entities. I think there is a lot
people can do and they should do it.
I see the fact that Steven King doesn't want to
net publish as a good idea!;) It will keep away
Rick Moody who is some people's bete noir.
It will keep the whole star cult turned down a
notch. That isn't to say that fame and its effects
can be totally ignored but that it isn't as intense
in the electronic universe.
These all seem like hopeful features to me.
Even though I am a dual mode person
i.e. paper plus electronic...I must say overall
so far the electronic universe has been
pretty nice to me.
Have Fun,
Sends Steve