Lovecraft screenplay
rancartwright
facebook...going to run it by you here as well...
Tell me...ya think any interest would be garnered if a Lovecraftian
screenplay would be published in book form to be read along with the
accompanying short story that the screenplay was adapted from?
A little teasing hint...only two people have ever read the screenplay
(that I'm aware of)...myself and my co-writer who happens to be the
author of the story that the script was adapted from.
Just can't seen to garner any interest in the script, so I've been
toying with the idea of publishing script and story in book form...of
course, with the agreement of my co-writer...
Mike
An unproduced screenplay? LA is full of waiters offering to give them
away for free. All kidding aside... no.
--Mike
Al Smith
Nobody wants to read scripts, not even producers and directors, to
say nothing of actors. Producers pay other people to read scripts so
that they don't have to. The general public certainly doesn't want
to read scripts.
-Al-
rancartwright
Interesting...5 pro and 2 con thus far.
Avid Fan
I don't think this is the way to go.
A script has to made has to be acted out.
Publish the story but not the script.
With low price of quality audio and video equipment I am surprised that
more people don't make movies or audio plays. Blair Witch guys did it
and made a hundred million dollars.
Actors want to act. Writers want to see their work produced. Get
together form a co-op work out the shares.
rancartwright
>
> I don't think this is the way to go.
>
> A script has to made has to be acted out.
>
> Publish the story but not the script.
>
To date, 9 pro, 3 con.
As a matter of note, I’m not interested in Hollywood and/or producers,
directors, actors, script editors, best boys, key grips, hordes of LA
waiters and waitresses (kidding or not), a taco eating Chihuahuas, or
Shakespeare’s ghost…etc etc etc…reading the script. That’s irrelevant.
The script isn’t on the market (although, admittedly, at one time it
was).
The idea here is to possibly publish the story and script together in
a short novel. Those interested could read both, see the differences,
etc. Here we have two versions of the same story in different formats,
one a prose short story and the other a screenplay adapted from the
original short story. The story was expanded and altered somewhat to
fit the formulaic “visual story told by a series of pictures.” So,
simply put - two versions of the same story in different formats.
Maybe someday the script could be rewritten in prose form as an
expanded version of the original.
As for films, I’ve yet to see (IMHO) Hollywood do adequate justice to
Lovecraftian horror/mood/atmosphere. No doubt the script that my co-
writer and I adapted from one of his short stories would have suffered
the same fate.
LookingGlass
> screenplay would be published in book form to be read along with the
> accompanying short story that the screenplay was adapted from?
>
> A little teasing hint...only two people have ever read the screenplay
> (that I'm aware of)...myself and my co-writer who happens to be the
> author of the story that the script was adapted from.
>
> Just can't seen to garner any interest in the script, so I've been
> toying with the idea of publishing script and story in book form...of
> course, with the agreement of my co-writer...
...why? Is it an *instructional* book you wish to publish? How to
write a screenplay?
rancartwright
>
> ...why? Is it an *instructional* book you wish to publish? How to
> write a screenplay?
No. Not instructional. It's just a screen adaptation of a short story
written by a fellow mythos writer. Thought some mythos fan might find
it entertaining, two different versions of the same story in different
formats.
As noted in my last message, perhaps someday the screenplay will be
rerwritten in prose form.
Al Smith
Perhaps that would be a good time to publish it.
-Al-
Aaron Vanek
I'm short for time, so I am going to be brief:
1. I've been involved in making Lovecraft movies for a long time. I
have seen many adaptations, of many budgets, languages, styles, and
stories.
2. I have lived in Los Angeles for almost 20 years, and have been
involved in "Hollywood" for about as long.
3. Unless you want to get the script made, or it has already been
made, there's no reason to publish it. Or, if you DO publish it,
you've pretty much killed any chance of someone else ever making it
(though you could make the movie yourself).
4. If you're not having any luck getting the script made into a movie,
what makes you think you'll have better luck publishing the script in
a book? You can make a movie yourself almost as easily as you can self-
publish. Related to that, why talk to us here, why not query some
publishers and see what they think of the idea?
5. If the book is not an instructional (how to adapt), then no, I
absolutely would not want to read a script "along with" a prose story,
say, a page of prose next to a page of text. Absolutely not.
6. I have long been toying with the idea of doing a "how to write a
weird tale screenplay" instructional book that features a few
Lovecraft scripts, such as the HP Lovecraft Historical Society's "Call
of Cthulhu" and, in a self-serving way, the two versions of "The
Yellow Sign", one solely my own, the other written in conjunction with
John Tynes. So perhaps I'm just jealous.
best,
Aaron
Al Smith
We're always willing to assume selfish, ulterior motives in your
case, Aaron, but otherwise your post makes a lot of good sense. :-)
-Al-
james ambuehl
submit it to DEAD BUT DREAMING 2, for example. Best of luck on whatever
you decide though! ;-)
-- Jim
"When the Big Sleep ends, the Nightmares begin!" -- HARDBOILED CTHULHU:
TWO-FISTED TALES OF TENTACLED TERROR, edited by James Ambuehl and out
now from Elder Signs Press! Available from Clarkesworld Books,
Shocklines, Amazon, and Elder Signs Press itself!
james ambuehl
much harder to focus on the meat of the story than it is to read regular
prose. I'd prefer the regular version and regard the screenplay as a
curiosity for people who want to delve deeper into the creative proceses
(I never read the script samples in the back of comic book graphic
novels and trade paperbacks either).
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
> We're always willing to assume selfish, ulterior motives in your
> case, Aaron...
"We"? I'm not.
rancartwright
>
> > As noted in my last message, perhaps someday the screenplay will be
> > rerwritten in prose form.
>
> Perhaps that would be a good time to publish it.
>
> -Al-
I think you're right, Al. Unfortunately, I don't envision that
happening due to other commitments.
Back to LookingGlass's "instructional" query...there's enough of them
on the market; I've a couple in my library.
Referencing Aaron's Point 5, specifically "...say, a page of prose
next to a page of text. Absolutely not." I agree, I wouldn't read it
either if formatted as such. That would be ridiculous.
rancartwright
> Ran, you could always revise the story as best you two can and then
> submit it to DEAD BUT DREAMING 2, for example. Best of luck on whatever
> you decide though! ;-)
>
> -- Jim
>
Hi Jim,
Great to hear form you again. DEAD BUT DREAMING 2 is a good idea, but
can't see it happenoing. As noted above, other commitments preclude
it. I've tended to move away from Lovecraftian Horror to other genre
and ideas. And I've lost contact over the past few years with my co-
writer (Mike Minnis).
rancartwright
> Just my two cents, but I find it rather intrusive to read screenplays,
> much harder to focus on the meat of the story than it is to read regular
> prose. I'd prefer the regular version and regard the screenplay as a
Jim,
Many thanks to you (and Al) for responding directly to the "point" my
query. You two seem to be the only ones who have. I think most here
were reading a little more into my question than was my intent. The
intent was simple (or so I thought) - would Lovecraftian horror fans
be interested in two different versions of the same story in a short
novel? A simple yes or no with brief a reason would have sufficed.
Ran
Al Smith
'Twas the royal "we".
-Al-
Al Smith
One of the words of advice I'd give to writers -- not that they ever
ask me for advice -- is to write novels, even if you don't greatly
care for novels. Novels are salable. For the most part, short
stories, poems, plays and scripts are not. Short stories can be
given away, but it's hard to get any money for them. Editors seem to
think they should be free for the asking. Once you have a novel that
attracts some interest, it is always possible to turn it into a
script for a film.
Another thing to consider is that collections of short stories
having the same main character, or at least some theme or common
element that binds the together, are somewhat more salable than
individual short stories, because they can be sold as a collection
in book form. Ray Bradbury found this out when he came to sell his
Mars stories. Editors had pestered him for a novel, but he didn't
have a novel, and at the time felt he couldn't write a novel -- he
was able to sell his Mars stories as a book because they are
somewhat connected.
-Al-
rancartwright
>
> Another thing to consider is that collections of short stories
> having the same main character, or at least some theme or common
> element that binds the together, are somewhat more salable than
> individual short stories, because they can be sold as a collection
> in book form.
Agreed, which is the case for all my prose writing...cases in
point...the stories of my "industrial horror" series are all set in
the same dying and decaying city; my fantasy satire series (and novel)
have revolving characters and are all set in the same "multiverse,"
per se; and, of course, my Lovecraftian material...well, that goes
without saying in this group.
Dan Clore
> Another thing to consider is that collections of short stories having
> the same main character, or at least some theme or common element
> that binds the together, are somewhat more salable than individual
> short stories, because they can be sold as a collection in book form.
> Ray Bradbury found this out when he came to sell his Mars stories.
> Editors had pestered him for a novel, but he didn't have a novel, and
> at the time felt he couldn't write a novel -- he was able to sell his
> Mars stories as a book because they are somewhat connected.
I felt rather put off when I discovered that the stories in The Martian
Chronicles weren't consistent with one another. But I got over it.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Al Smith
I wish there were even more receptivity to sets of connected short
stories. I love them, myself. There are all sorts of ways to make
the link -- same location, same family, same event such as a famine
or war, same profession, same significant object that everyone
wants, same character. For example, a set of stories sold as a book
collection could be based on the reincarnations of a single soul
down through history.
-Al-
Al Smith
> Al Smith wrote:
>
>> Another thing to consider is that collections of short stories having
>> the same main character, or at least some theme or common element
>> that binds the together, are somewhat more salable than individual
>> short stories, because they can be sold as a collection in book form.
>> Ray Bradbury found this out when he came to sell his Mars stories.
>> Editors had pestered him for a novel, but he didn't have a novel, and
>> at the time felt he couldn't write a novel -- he was able to sell his
>> Mars stories as a book because they are somewhat connected.
>
> I felt rather put off when I discovered that the stories in The Martian
> Chronicles weren't consistent with one another. But I got over it.
>
They were never intended to be collected as a narrative thread.
Given this, they worked surprisingly well together.
-Al-
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, but I disagree. Learn your craft by writing short stories
before you attempt a novel. I did - my first published novel was
written eleven years after my first published short story. There are
still quite a lot of short story markets that pay decent rates, and I
don't know of any editors of professionally published books who think
the contents should be "free for the asking". Far too many writers are
attempting novels before they're technically equipped to do so. It's
worth remembering that before THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES Ray had already
brought out a collection of unconnected tales.
Al Smith
Bradbury couldn't write a novel at that time. He was afraid to even
try. His "Martian Chronicles" (1950) was making a virtue of
necessity. His "Fahrenheit 451" (1951) was really just an extended
short story (similar to "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" in that
respect). It wasn't until "Something Wicked This Way Comes" (1962)
that he finally wrote a novel.
Why shouldn't new writers learn on novels, since it will be novels
from which they will earn their livings, if they do become
professional fiction writers? Why should they waste time on the
short story form? There is no market to speak of for short stories.
I think short stories are great, but nobody want to pay anything for
them. Either they want the flat-out for free, or they want to pay a
token amount with is much the same thing.
Only when a writer gets royalties accumulating does he have any
chance to make some serious money from his work. You don't usually
earn royalties from a short story. I say, if you're going to
practice, practice on a novel. Sooner or later you'll have to master
the novel form, so you might as well start early.
-Al-
Aaron Vanek
> Only when a writer gets royalties accumulating does he have any
> chance to make some serious money from his work. You don't usually
> earn royalties from a short story. I say, if you're going to
> practice, practice on a novel. Sooner or later you'll have to master
> the novel form, so you might as well start early.
>
> -Al-
I disagree. Like published author Ramsey Campbell says, learning how
to tell a story in prose with short stories is a fine skill to hone
before attempting a novel. I'd listen to him rather than someone who
claims to be an author but refuses to reveal his true name or
bibliography.
Ultimately it doesn't matter; the answer is particular to the writer.
Some start out in short stories (Stephen King, JD Salinger, Charles
Dickens), others jump right into novels.
If one is a writer, one should be able to competently engage in both
forms, short and long. Perhaps every writer should split the
difference and work on novellas.
Just another data point in the pot:
My author friend Greg Van Eekhout (who is proofing his second and
third novels now, to come out next year from Harper-Collins...I
believe it's Harper, they published his first one, "Norse Code", but I
could be wrong) got his start in short story writing. It was through
his short story publications (and Nebula nomination) that brought him
to the attention of editors and agents (and Hollywood).
True, his novel isn't as good as his shorts (which are amazing), and
he didn't quit his day job until the novel check arrived, but he
couldn't get where he is without refining his ability in the short
story form and market. And he still prefers writing short stories to
novels.
This is the fiction market; in non-fiction, many writers make a living
writing "shorts" for newspapers and magazines (yes yes, it is dying
and more difficult to do so, but it's still there).
In the motion picture world, many directors get their start with
commercials or music videos; the "shorts" before they are tapped to
make a feature.
I think if one were to advise Ran, the advice would be: "Learn to tell
a story with words. Length is up to you and your muse. If you want to
make a career out of it, you'll need to assemble many words."
But griping about his own dysfunctional life is de rigueur for an Al
Smith post.
To Rancartwright's original query:
Would Lovecraftian horror fans
be interested in two different versions of the same story in a short
novel? A simple yes or no with brief a reason would have sufficed.
My vote is: No.
Aaron
Al Smith
It comes down to whether or not a young writer wants to earn a
living writing fiction. If he just wants to write for the joy of it,
or as a sideline while he holds down a job teaching school, short
stories are fine. They are easy to place in little magazines and
on-line, even though they don't pay much of anything. As long as a
writer is willing to give them away, he can usually find some home
for them. Stories are good practice pieces for learning to write
longer prose fiction.
On the other hand, short stories require a different set of skills
than novels. A lot of writers can do both well, but a lot of other
writers find that they are only good at stories, or only good at
novels. Lovecraft, for example, never felt comfortable about trying
to write a novel. He was asked by a major publisher about doing a
novel, but he declined the attempt. It might be argued that his work
was tending toward the novel in his later years -- pieces such as
"At the Mountains of Madness" are almost novels. Bradbury never
really was at his best in the novel form, even though he recognized
in the late 40s and early 50s that it would have been greatly to his
financial advantage to crank out some novels.
If a writer is serious about earning a living from fiction, he'd
better develop his skills at novel writing early, because that's
where the money is. Sure, there are writers making a living writing
scripts, or comic books, few and far between, but there are a lot
more of them making a living writing novels.
So, as I indicated at the beginning, it comes down to what a writer
wants. If he wants to make money, he'd better focus on novels. If he
just wants some editor to accept his prose, and to publish it in
some form or other, short stories are a good way to go. Someone who
wants to be a professional will work on his novel skills, someone
who doesn't mind remaining an amateur may be satisfied with short
stories.
And bear in mind, this has nothing to do with the relative literary
merits of the short story, or the novel -- both have their own
merits, both are worthy media of expression. It has to do with the
practical challenge of making a living in fiction writing.
-Al-
rancartwright
> I think if one were to advise Ran, the advice would be: "Learn to tell
> a story with words. Length is up to you and your muse. If you want to
> make a career out of it, you'll need to assemble many words."
Not new to this. I've been writing for a number of years. And have
amassed "many words" (some I'd as soon, admittedly, leave behind!).
There are some in this group who know me and know my output. Some like
it, some don't. A fair trade. Of course, it's an ongoing learning
process of refinement that I'm not always satisfied with, but who is?
I've said on a few occasions that I write for the entertainment value,
both mine and my readers. A writing career would have been nice at an
earlier point in my life, but I already have a good career of which
I'm within 3 years of retirement.
As for length (and genre) it comes down to what I feel comfortable
with. I've always felt much more comfortable writing short stories in
both fantasy satire and horror. That is the greater part of my output.
And that would be my advice to beginning writers - write what you feel
comfortable with. Much easier to develop your craft (and style) while
writing in a comfort zone, per se.
icarp...@aol.com
ones of Columbiana County? Or sketches of staging you had in mind?
Matt
rancartwright
The CC photos on facebook were just a novelty since I was born and
raised in the area. Convenient to take the photos and post them for
anyone who read the collection and were interested in where the
stories were set.
Sorry, Matt, no sketches. Not a set designer. Would have been someone
else job. LOL
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
> And that would be my advice to beginning writers - write what you feel
> comfortable with. Much easier to develop your craft (and style) while
> writing in a comfort zone, per se.
I think that's essentially right. I'd put it a little differently -
write what engages your imagination. And I'd advise them to concern
themselves with improving their craft rather than trying to shape
their work towards whatever makes most money.
Al Smith
It depends on what they are looking for, Ramsey. If a writer wants
to become a professional, and make a living from his writing, he'd
better concern himself with what makes him the money. If he wants to
write for a hobby, he can do whatever he likes, since chances are
that nobody outside his circle of family and friends will ever read
his stuff.
-Al-
Harksen
> It depends on what they are looking for, Ramsey. If a writer wants
> to become a professional, and make a living from his writing, he'd
> better concern himself with what makes him the money. If he wants to
> write for a hobby, he can do whatever he likes, since chances are
> that nobody outside his circle of family and friends will ever read
> his stuff.
And what's wrong with improving your craft--at the same time you
submit stories? I fail to see how this is at odds with each other?
Also, except for Barbara Cartland, perhaps, what writer ever initially
"made it" solely on speculation about what would sell?
-Henrik
Al Smith
Nothing wrong with improving your skills as a writer. Being a better
writer will help in placing your works with publishers who can earn
you some actual income, as opposed to small vanity presses.
-Al-
Harksen
>Being a better
> writer will help in placing your works with publishers who can earn
> you some actual income, as opposed to small vanity presses.
Then we agree:-)
-Henrik
Al Smith
Sure, why not?
-Al-
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
If a writer wants
> to become a professional, and make a living from his writing, he'd
> better concern himself with what makes him the money. If he wants to
> write for a hobby, he can do whatever he likes, since chances are
> that nobody outside his circle of family and friends will ever read
> his stuff.
That's a silly over-simplification. Many of the best published writers
didn't make a living from their work, and that's still true today. Too
much of the time it's the hacks who do. Of course there are writers of
considerable merit who make a living from it, but I would strongly
recommend people to concentrate on producing their best work, not on
whatever seems most commercial. Far better to support yourself with a
job that isn't too taxing while you write. That's how I produced my
early books, and after eleven years of that I relied on my wife's
income as a teacher for several more.
thang ornithorhynchus
rancartwright
>
> I'd put it a little differently -
> write what engages your imagination.
Many thanks, Ramsey. Excellent point and advice well taken.
rancartwright
>
> If a writer wants
> to become a professional, and make a living from his writing, he'd
> better concern himself with what makes him the money. If he wants to
> write for a hobby, he can do whatever he likes, since chances are
> that nobody outside his circle of family and friends will ever read
> his stuff.
>
> -Al-
And there are those somewhere in between the two extremes...like me.
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
And (for another living example in our field) Thomas Ligotti. The idea
that if one doesn't make a living from it, one's writing must be a
hobby, is very silly indeed.
marika
<ram...@ramsey-campbell.com> wrote in message
news:0a1c1ea2-1127-497c...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
============
That would make raising one's children a mere hobby. I must reflect on the
fact that now that my former boss has a five year old child and the work
that she and I did seven years ago is beginning to tell in that office. She
continues to believe that she made the right decision to stop doing that and
raise the kid. But she did make a great and lasting improvement in the for
pay one.
I visited her in Florida two winters ago. February is always nice at
DisneyWorld if you're into that. The kid had some time off from school then
so we were able to do it.
Avid Fan
Thomas Ligotti is retired to Florida isn't he? I have never been to
Florida but it seems to be he seems quite different from the places he
describes. He seems to be compared with HP Lovecraft a lot but I don't
see the similarity.
Speaking of day jobs Ramsey what was working at Borders really likei
It must be tough being a writer coming up with all those ideas.
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
> Speaking of day jobs Ramsey what was working at Borders really likei
>
> It must be tough being a writer coming up with all those ideas.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I enjoyed working at Borders, especially being able to take customers
to books they wanted. And the management were extremely accommodating
in giving me shifts that let me continue to write as I needed to.
Ideas - Lord, they're the easy part. I've far more of those in my
notebooks than I'll ever have time to develop.
Dan Clore
>> It must be tough being a writer coming up with all those ideas.-
>> Hide quoted text -
> Ideas - Lord, they're the easy part. I've far more of those in my
> notebooks than I'll ever have time to develop.
Just, please, Ramsey, please, avoid any temptation you ever experience
to allow a team of hacks to produce books based on your ideas.
Especially any books with covers that have "RAMSEY CAMPBELL's" in huge
letters on the top, followed by the title in mid-size letters, and a
line at the bottom in teeny letters giving the actual author credit.
On the other hand, I won't suggest that you leave your unused ideas for
posthumous collaborators to use--
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Al Smith
I'm glad it worked out for you, Ramsey. What often happens is that
writers who tell themselves that they are going to write part-time
never quite get around to doing it full-time.
A professional writes for money. An amateur may choose to give his
work away for nothing. Needless to say, some amateur work may be of
high quality. However, the discipline of choosing to earn an income
from writing alone has its own refining influence on the work. It
tends to eliminate self-indulgence and frivolousness.
-Al-
Al Smith
I'm sure there are all points in between represented by various writers.
-Al-
Al Smith
It's sort of the definition of hobby, isn't it? Something done for
recreation in spare time that does not provide the primary income.
-Al-
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
It isn't according to my dictionary, no. If we really must have a
definition of it, I would call it a second job. I don't imagine that
most writers who don't make a living from this activity write "for
recreation".
Harksen
> A professional writes for money. An amateur may choose to give his
> work away for nothing.
What about a professional writer who also, from time to time, "gives
away" stories to small presses and suchlike?
Things are rarely black and white, I've learned.
> the discipline of choosing to earn an income
> from writing alone has its own refining influence on the work. It
> tends to eliminate self-indulgence and frivolousness.
Why? Doesn't that depend on both the writer, the publisher and the
readers? I don't see this as written in stone (as your remark to me
sounds like it is meant to be).
On 29 Okt., 15:00, ram...@ramsey-campbell.com wrote:
> If we really must have a
> definition of it, I would call it a second job. I don't imagine that
> most writers who don't make a living from this activity write "for
> recreation".
Hear, hear!:-)
-Henrik
Dan Clore
> On Oct 29, 12:13�am, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
>> On 10/20/2009 7:53 AM, ram...@ramsey-campbell.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 19, 6:24 pm, rancartwright <demari...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 16, 2:49 pm, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
>>>>> If a writer wants to become a professional, and make a living
>>>>> from his writing, he'd better concern himself with what makes
>>>>> him the money. If he wants to write for a hobby, he can do
>>>>> whatever he likes, since chances are that nobody outside his
>>>>> circle of family and friends will ever read his stuff. -Al-
>>>> And there are those somewhere in between the two
>>>> extremes...like me.
>>> And (for another living example in our field) Thomas Ligotti. The
>>> idea that if one doesn't make a living from it, one's writing
>>> must be a hobby, is very silly indeed.
>> It's sort of the definition of hobby, isn't it? Something done for
>> recreation in spare time that does not provide the primary income.
> It isn't according to my dictionary, no. If we really must have a
> definition of it, I would call it a second job. I don't imagine that
> most writers who don't make a living from this activity write "for
> recreation".
I suppose it depends on what one calls "recreation". My guess is that
most writers who make a living from their writing just produce ephemeral
trash because it happens to be what sells well at the moment (if you
don't know what I mean, just go to any benefit book sale and check out
the mountains of yesterday's junk that no one even bothers to look
through) and that most of those who aren't trying to make a living from
their writing write as a means of what has been called variously
individuation, self-actualization, self-realization, etc. Some writers
switch back and forth, but most find that difficult at best.
The luckiest writers, of course, manage to make money at the same time,
and Ramsey's probably a good example of one who has managed to do both.
But most of the greatest writers barely scrape by or rely on other
sources of income.
Al Smith
Professional publication requires a certain level of basic
competence. A professional writer has to satisfy an editor and a
publisher that his work has some merit -- that it will appeal to
enough readers to cover the cost of publication. Unless he does so,
the publisher will not put up the money to publish the book. To
maintain a career, a professional writer has to continue to meet the
needs of readers year after year, book after book. You may regard
successful fiction as trash, but those who buy it do so because they
enjoy it.
By contrast, amateur writers who publish in tiny fan magazines or on
the Internet don't need to meet any requirements of any kind,
because their work is usually accepted merely to fill up space.
There are no costs associated with "publishing" it. The writer
receives a small boost to his ego by seeing his words on the page,
or on a Web site, but no money. The same is true of self-publishing,
or vanity publishing, as it is called. It is ego driven, and most
commonly the writer who publishes his own book ends up with boxes
filled with unsold copies in his garage.
It sometimes happens that a vanity press book will possess some
genuine merit, but more commonly they do not. The quality of writing
that is published on the Internet without payment to the writer is
usually dismal. That is to say, it is unreadable. Even in the narrow
world of Lovecraftian fiction, a reader is much more likely to find
good stories in professionally published anthologies then in fan
flyers or on Internet sites.
Money is completely honest. Readers will only pay money for
something they want. The opinions of friends and family cannot be
trusted -- they will lie to a writer to avoid hurting his feelings.
An agent or a literary critic may have other reasons for being less
than honest to a writer about his latest book. But money never lies.
If readers like a book, it sells. If they really like it a lot, it
sells a lot of copies.
-Al-
John Goodrich
> The same is true of self-publishing,
> or vanity publishing, as it is called.
>
No. Vanity publishing makes money for the publisher, from the
author. Vanity are established presses charge to put out books.
Publish America is a good example of a Vanity Press, and the
difference is well showcased by the Travis Tea's Atlanta Nights
website. http://www.travistea.com/
Self-publication is when the author establishes their own publication
house. Lulu, for example, is a tool of self-publishers. And self-
pubbers are a whole different kettle of fish from Vanity. Quality
will depend entirely on the quality of the people involved, where
Vanity is supported wholly by the uninformed.
John Goodrich
Al Smith
A vanity press is just a medium through which an author can produce
a run of his book. It is a way to self-publish. Another way would be
for the writer to photocopy all the pages of, say, 500 copies, and
bind them himself. Instead, he hires somebody else to do that work.
Sometimes the company hired over-charges for the work, sometimes
not. Sometimes they make promises they do not fulfill, sometimes
not. The point is, this form of publication has nothing to do with
the merits of the work. It is driven by the vanity of the writer,
hence the term "vanity publishing." A vanity house never refuses a
book due to its poor quality, since the writer is paying their
costs. It may happen that a self-published book sells well. In that
case the vanity of the writer is justified. More often, it results
in boxes of books sitting unsold in the writer's house.
With the advent of publishing on demand, where a single copy can be
printed up for anyone who wants it by some company such as
Amazon.com, this situation may become a relic of the past. However,
writers who want their book printed up in a nice leather or buckram
hardcover binding on fine paper with gold lettering on leather
labels, or whatever, will still need to resort to a vanity press.
Print on demand is probably never going to be able to do a really
fine, attractive, distinctive job. It will only be able to bind
pages together so that they don't fall apart immediately (but
probably after six months or so). As for Internet publication ... it
really isn't publication in the usual sense. It is merely posting up
text to a Web site or other Internet venue, much as I am doing right
now. I suppose in a technical sense I am publishing these words, but
I don't regard this as publication.
-Al-
Dan Clore
> On 10/30/2009 9:59 AM, John Goodrich wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 2:59 am, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
> With the advent of publishing on demand, where a single copy can be
> printed up for anyone who wants it by some company such as
> Amazon.com, this situation may become a relic of the past. However,
> writers who want their book printed up in a nice leather or buckram
> hardcover binding on fine paper with gold lettering on leather
> labels, or whatever, will still need to resort to a vanity press.
> Print on demand is probably never going to be able to do a really
> fine, attractive, distinctive job. It will only be able to bind pages
> together so that they don't fall apart immediately (but probably
> after six months or so).
Strangely enough, all of the POD books that I have had experience with
are physically indistinguishable from any other trade paperback. None of
them have come apart, even after years (and I tend to be hard on books,
marking passages and underlining words as I read, and re-reading and
referencing them later). This is an important issue to me, as my own
story collection The Unspeakable and Others was published as a POD book.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Dan Clore
Thanks for explaining this essential distinction. Al Smith doesn't seem
to have a very good understanding of the publishing industry.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Dan Clore
You don't seem to have any understanding of what I wrote or the
distinction I tried to make.
Al Smith
> Al Smith wrote:
>> On 10/30/2009 9:59 AM, John Goodrich wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 2:59 am, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
>
>> With the advent of publishing on demand, where a single copy can be
>> printed up for anyone who wants it by some company such as Amazon.com,
>> this situation may become a relic of the past. However, writers who
>> want their book printed up in a nice leather or buckram hardcover
>> binding on fine paper with gold lettering on leather labels, or
>> whatever, will still need to resort to a vanity press. Print on demand
>> is probably never going to be able to do a really fine, attractive,
>> distinctive job. It will only be able to bind pages
>> together so that they don't fall apart immediately (but probably
>> after six months or so).
>
> Strangely enough, all of the POD books that I have had experience with
> are physically indistinguishable from any other trade paperback. None of
> them have come apart, even after years (and I tend to be hard on books,
> marking passages and underlining words as I read, and re-reading and
> referencing them later). This is an important issue to me, as my own
> story collection The Unspeakable and Others was published as a POD book.
>
That's good to know. So far, I haven't bought a print on demand
book, so I have no direct experience with the quality. If my
suspicion that they are not as well bound as regular trade
paperbacks is unfounded, I'm happy to hear it.
-Al-
Al Smith
Sorry, Dan. I'll just have to try harder next time.
-Al-
Evans
> John Goodrich wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2:59 am, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
>
> >> The same is true of self-publishing, or vanity publishing, as it is
> >> called.
>
> > No. Vanity publishing makes money for the publisher, from the
> > author. Vanity are established presses charge to put out books.
> > Publish America is a good example of a Vanity Press, and the
> > difference is well showcased by the Travis Tea's Atlanta Nights
> > website. http://www.travistea.com/
>
> > Self-publication is when the author establishes their own publication
> > house. Lulu, for example, is a tool of self-publishers. And self-
> > pubbers are a whole different kettle of fish from Vanity. Quality
> > will depend entirely on the quality of the people involved, where
> > Vanity is supported wholly by the uninformed.
>
> Thanks for explaining this essential distinction. Al Smith doesn't seem
> to have a very good understanding of the publishing industry.
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> (Wait for the new edition:http://hplmythos.com/)
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
I don't know a great detail about print on demand publishers and such
but the only print on demand books I've came across have been decent
enough - better paper quality than some of the stuff TOR has produced
to be honest. (though typos seem to pop up a little more frequently.)
As for "self publishing" - I hope to publish something (not my own
work I hasten to add.) myself eventual but it isn't as easy as it
looks. I need to check a few things about book design and typesetting
before I approach a printer.
Sorry for the random blogging here by the way.
Dan Clore
I guess so.
The simple fact is that just because a lot of people buy something
doesn't mean it's good. (Or that it's bad, for that matter.)