NEW PUBLISHER seeks feedback
William Palmer
> 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 here 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. Even so, 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 ebook. 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 how
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
threw in the towel regarding their hopes
for the future of 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 megastar like
Mr. King would consider a "successful book,"
would probably provide enough income to support
thirty other writers of more modest spending
habits for a 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 news:<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)
Michael Allan
> 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
From a systems perspective, here are some illustrations of that grip:
http://www.zelea.com/reference/Allan/2001/09a.html
--
Michael Allan
Genetic texts are for poets and short story writers
experimental p2p networks for open composition and publication
http://www.zelea.com/application/edge/index.html
Adam Hart
"Michael Allan" <mi...@zelea.com> wrote in message
news:D1Rw9.10900$h_4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Michael,
Your concept is intriguing and the execution is simply marvelous. However,
I do not see how you can escape the tyranny of mass production. Mediated
communication pre-dates mass production, but mass production absolutely
requires mediated communication. You may -- and people certainly do -- make
their end-runs around the mass production line, but the mass production line
will still dominate the publishing world, largely because of vertical
integration: It's simply a matter of economy -- art has little to do with
it.
Adam
Michael Allan
> I do not see how you can escape the tyranny of mass production. Mediated
> communication pre-dates mass production, but mass production absolutely
> requires mediated communication. You may -- and people certainly do -- make
> their end-runs around the mass production line, but the mass production line
> will still dominate the publishing world, largely because of vertical
> integration: It's simply a matter of economy -- art has little to do with
> it.
Maybe I can concede that point, without conceding the argument.
Mass production may be inevitable -- suppose that it is --
but its tyranny over design need not be.
If mediated communication is essential to mass production, as you say,
then it follows that a writer will never reach a mass readership
except through the brokerage of a publisher.
I will grant this, for the sake of the argument.
But the tyranny that I tried to highlight, in this draft essay,
is not the mediation between a writer and a mass readership,
but between a writer and other writers.
This is the stanglehold that publishers have over literature,
which I believe can be loosened by technology.
I agree with you that publishers will continue to exist.
But there will come a day when writers
will no longer need to push their work at publishers;
when publishers will instead pull from the literary design line
whatever works they feel are ready for the masses.
(See figure 4, in
http://www.zelea.com/reference/Allan/2001/09a.html )
From that day, literature will evolve freely.
Adam Hart
> > . . . However,
> > I do not see how you can escape the tyranny of mass production.
Mediated
> > communication pre-dates mass production, but mass production absolutely
> > requires mediated communication. You may -- and people certainly do --
make
> > their end-runs around the mass production line, but the mass production
line
> > will still dominate the publishing world, largely because of vertical
> > integration: It's simply a matter of economy -- art has little to do
with
> > it.
>
> Maybe I can concede that point, without conceding the argument.
> Mass production may be inevitable -- suppose that it is --
> but its tyranny over design need not be.
Michael,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and forgive my overlong answer.
No tyranny is absolute, but it will persist. And here's the nature of that
tyranny:
The advantage of mass production isn't, and never has been, the high-quality
design of an individual product. The advantage is in the average design of
millions of products -- the design of everything from Ford Mustangs to
Wal-Mart floor lamps is dictated, at least in part, by the necessities of
mass production.
Because we live in a mass culture, you can get those mass products to lots
and lots of people for really cheap, and before long they're not going to
bother going to the neighborhood producer, because, well, his custom-made
stuff is kind of expensive and, gosh, sometimes he has an off day and his
stuff is kind of crappy, and, heck, why not just go to the store where you
know you'll *always* get a decent product for cheap.
Before long you develop a taste for the store-bought stuff (pulp fiction),
and the neighborhood producer, who was too proud to get a job at the
factory, is teaching English Comp at the local community college.
And that, in part, is why good literature will still occupy only a fraction
of a percentage of the shelf space at public libraries and retail
bookstores.
However, I applaud you for your subversiveness.
>
> If mediated communication is essential to mass production, as you say,
> then it follows that a writer will never reach a mass readership
> except through the brokerage of a publisher.
> I will grant this, for the sake of the argument.
>
> But the tyranny that I tried to highlight, in this draft essay,
> is not the mediation between a writer and a mass readership,
> but between a writer and other writers.
> This is the stanglehold that publishers have over literature,
> which I believe can be loosened by technology.
One of the things that I love about your proposal is that it got me thinking
about the role of the editor in the writing process. Editors are supposed
to be the ones who distill a work to its 150-proof edge, ready for
publication and sale. Sometimes editors are writers, but they don't need to
be. I wonder if the special position of the editor is itself a by-product
of the literary mass-production line. Extreme specialization is a
well-known side effect of mass production.
>
> I agree with you that publishers will continue to exist.
> But there will come a day when writers
> will no longer need to push their work at publishers;
> when publishers will instead pull from the literary design line
> whatever works they feel are ready for the masses.
> (See figure 4, in
> http://www.zelea.com/reference/Allan/2001/09a.html )
>
> From that day, literature will evolve freely.
Writers need to push their work at publishers because writers need to eat.
For the sake of argument, let's say you succeed in establishing a working
design line that publishers may, at their discretion, use as a talent pool
of sorts. It's a noble goal, and just think of the commissions you could
charge. But what about the hapless writers who spend half their time on the
design line helping their peers, but never get selected for publication.
Who feeds their kids?
Adam
David M. Harris
> Before long you develop a taste for the store-bought stuff (pulp fiction),
> and the neighborhood producer, who was too proud to get a job at the
> factory, is teaching English Comp at the local community college.
> And that, in part, is why good literature will still occupy only a fraction
> of a percentage of the shelf space at public libraries and retail
> bookstores.
>
mandate from Apollo to determine which of it is good, but I'll say
fiction that has ambition beyond entertainment) holds a considerable
part of the shelf space in stores and libraries, well more than one
percent (I'd estimate closer to ten percent at the Barnes & Noble,
bearing in mind how much goes for magazines and non-fiction and CD's).
dmh
--
author of Democracy and Other Problems, an essay chapbook from SRM,
Publishers, available at http://www.korval.com/srmcat1.htm
Michael Allan
> tyranny:
> The advantage of mass production isn't, and never has been, the high-quality
> design of an individual product. The advantage is in the average design of
> millions of products -- the design of everything from Ford Mustangs to
> Wal-Mart floor lamps is dictated, at least in part, by the necessities of
> mass production.
> Because we live in a mass culture, you can get those mass products to lots
> and lots of people for really cheap, and before long they're not going to
> bother going to the neighborhood producer, because, well, his custom-made
> stuff is kind of expensive and, gosh, sometimes he has an off day and his
> stuff is kind of crappy, and, heck, why not just go to the store where you
> know you'll *always* get a decent product for cheap.
> Before long you develop a taste for the store-bought stuff (pulp fiction),
> and the neighborhood producer, who was too proud to get a job at the
> factory, is teaching English Comp at the local community college.
> And that, in part, is why good literature will still occupy only a fraction
> of a percentage of the shelf space at public libraries and retail
> bookstores.
> However, I applaud you for your subversiveness.
But wait, you describe the wrong tyranny.
The machinery of mass production may or may not persist, as you say,
but it is not what I would hope to subvert --
only the role it plays as a mediator among designers, e.g. among writers.
> One of the things that I love about your proposal is that it got me thinking
> about the role of the editor in the writing process. Editors are supposed
> to be the ones who distill a work to its 150-proof edge, ready for
> publication and sale. Sometimes editors are writers, but they don't need to
> be. I wonder if the special position of the editor is itself a by-product
> of the literary mass-production line. Extreme specialization is a
> well-known side effect of mass production.
Yes, the editor's position is typically a production niche, as you say.
Typically he serves a publisher.
Sometimes, though, he serves an author;
e.g. in editing Eliot's The Wasteland,
Pound served as editor to his friend,
though he was a poet himself, foremost.
But in the ecology of a peer-to-peer design line,
the editor will tend to serve himself.
Some will remain specialists, because editing is what they do best;
others will be free to blur the lines between editing and creative writing.
In any case, their contributions will gain them royalty in the work;
so whether they are purely editors or not,
they will be authors all of them.
> Writers need to push their work at publishers because writers need to eat.
> For the sake of argument, let's say you succeed in establishing a working
> design line that publishers may, at their discretion, use as a talent pool
> of sorts. It's a noble goal, and just think of the commissions you could
> charge. But what about the hapless writers who spend half their time on the
> design line helping their peers, but never get selected for publication.
> Who feeds their kids?
I would argue that any system in which amateur writers
must push texts at mass publishers,
is bound to keep most amateur writers poor.
Regardless of their talent, only a few can be chosen,
thence to be pushed further at the masses, as stars.
The remainder will go poor, like aspiring stars in Hollywood.
I do not forsee a talent pool, in any case,
from which writers are selected for publication;
but rather an evolving population of literature,
from which texts are selected.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the mechanisms
by which creative writers intercommunicate, and texts evolve,
there will be no monographs in this population.
Every text selected for publication will have multiple authors,
typically a very large number.
So, for any writer who spends time in the design line,
who really does make a contribution, as judged by her peers,
she will be paid for that contribution
if and when the works are published for profit.
(I doubt there would be brokerage commissions to pay for the network.
P2P networks are generally self-maintaining, and costless,
given a home computer, software, and ISP connection.)
Adam Hart
Well, that is a much more attainable goal.
>
> > One of the things that I love about your proposal is that it got me
thinking
> > about the role of the editor in the writing process. Editors are
supposed
> > to be the ones who distill a work to its 150-proof edge, ready for
> > publication and sale. Sometimes editors are writers, but they don't
need to
> > be. I wonder if the special position of the editor is itself a
by-product
> > of the literary mass-production line. Extreme specialization is a
> > well-known side effect of mass production.
>
> Yes, the editor's position is typically a production niche, as you say.
> Typically he serves a publisher.
> Sometimes, though, he serves an author;
> e.g. in editing Eliot's The Wasteland,
> Pound served as editor to his friend,
> though he was a poet himself, foremost.
>
Yes, I was thinking about those two myself.
I would counter that most amateur writers are poor because most amateurs are
poor writers (who usually must do something else to pay the rent). Writing
well is a full-time job, and I'll submit that the work of a professional
beats that of the hobbyist in most cases. I'm not saying you'll get rich
writing, but any decent writer with half a mind to can make a living in this
country ... as long as he or she is willing to toe the line and take a place
on the mass production line. Everyone wants to be a star, though, I'll
admit. And I understand that your system is directed at a particular
species of creative writing, which is not known for being very lucrative
even for the acknowledged masters.
>
> I do not forsee a talent pool, in any case,
> from which writers are selected for publication;
> but rather an evolving population of literature,
> from which texts are selected.
> Furthermore, as a consequence of the mechanisms
> by which creative writers intercommunicate, and texts evolve,
> there will be no monographs in this population.
> Every text selected for publication will have multiple authors,
> typically a very large number.
>
> So, for any writer who spends time in the design line,
> who really does make a contribution, as judged by her peers,
> she will be paid for that contribution
> if and when the works are published for profit.
That's a big if, and that's where I think the mass production line will
defeat your system: You won't be able to make a profit.
I can imagine what will happen when you toss in a few of our favorite human
qualities -- vanity, greed, pride, envy -- which have done in many a
collective.
>
> (I doubt there would be brokerage commissions to pay for the network.
> P2P networks are generally self-maintaining, and costless,
> given a home computer, software, and ISP connection.)
>
> --
> Michael Allan
>
> Genetic texts are for poets and short story writers
> experimental p2p networks for open composition and publication
> http://www.zelea.com/application/edge/index.html
>
>
But it's an elegant idea, all in all. Recombinant poetics kind of, dense
and lovely and expressed in some brilliantly esoteric technological jargon.
Reminds me a bit of Greg Ulmer's stuff, though I think your ends are more
practical.
Michael Allan
> poor writers (who usually must do something else to pay the rent). Writing
> well is a full-time job, and I'll submit that the work of a professional
> beats that of the hobbyist in most cases. I'm not saying you'll get rich
> writing, but any decent writer with half a mind to can make a living in this
> country ... as long as he or she is willing to toe the line and take a place
> on the mass production line. Everyone wants to be a star, though, I'll
> admit. And I understand that your system is directed at a particular
> species of creative writing, which is not known for being very lucrative
> even for the acknowledged masters.
If I were a writer, I'd rather be a stoic like you,
because otherwise it would be an unbearable occupation.
> > So, for any writer who spends time in the design line,
> > who really does make a contribution, as judged by her peers,
> > she will be paid for that contribution
> > if and when the works are published for profit.
>
> That's a big if, and that's where I think the mass production line will
> defeat your system: You won't be able to make a profit.
> I can imagine what will happen when you toss in a few of our favorite human
> qualities -- vanity, greed, pride, envy -- which have done in many a
> collective.
But it's quite the opposite of a collective, or a collaborative approach.
The underlying mechanism of genetic texts
is a backbone as hard-edged as nature's.
Vanity, greed, pride, and envy are openly admitted
and channeled as competitive forces.
Texts evolve in a literal life and death struggle.
The survivors will find publishers, it's a good bet.