I don't think we're losing focus; I think we're refining it. This is
just like writing a novel or creating a TV series: there's a point
where there are too many choices, where everything appears to be
disassembled, strewn in pieces across the table. It looks hopelessly
broken. It's not. It's just part of the process. You have to break
the story before you can put it together.
Karina suggested splitting the co-op in two, each focusing on
different arenas. I don't think we should do that just yet: not until
we know what our story is, not until we know what we're aiming for,
what our goal is. That goal will influence everything, including how
money and decisions are handled.
Once we get going, we'll probably have to break into groups following
our areas of expertise: creative content, production, distribution,
marketing, (and possibly membership). These groups will, of course,
overlap. But to separate now, before we have clear goals, before we
have our story sorted, could, in my opinion, lead to confusion and
discord in the future. I'd rather have the muddle happen now.
So here are my current thoughts (with lots of input from Kelley). I
got into this to test publishing, to test the integrative output part--
the production/marketing/distribution, and who has control--not the
input part, not the who-has-access stuff. Providing access to new
writers is not my priority. I can see a future where it's part of
what we do, because this is one of the ways I think publishing could
improve, but it's not a priority for me at the moment.
I'm leaning towards a two-stage approach: a swift test project and a
longer term grand vision project.
All pilot projects get screwed up to some degree (it's kind of the
point of having them--to learn), so I think it would be best to start
with stuff that's been published before. I think we should work our
contacts and get reprint stories and poems from the biggest names of
all genres we can reach--Stephen King, Ursula Le Guin, Dorothy
Allison, Mark Doty, Jonathan Lethem, Neil Gaiman, Laurell K. Hamilton--
and publish them. We contact these writers and tell them we'll
publish whatever they send (therefore cutting out the submission/
editing process, saving time and energy). We pitch it as a grand
experiment, and ask them to do it for free for the joy of it (though
we could probably work out a way to raise enough money to offer each a
token fee such as $100, if we had to). Then we run a simple website
encouraging art in response: music, illustrations, whatever. At the
same time, of course, we bring into play our fabby new marketing lab
(which might involve vids, and a Book Crossing kind of thing, readings
with music, podcasts etc. etc. as part of the publicity effort) to
sell the anthology.
We take what we learn from the pilot project and then formulate our
grand shared vision, something along the lines of the Iliad or The
World: The End or whatever.
If we wanted to get fancy for the test project, we could solicit
illustrations to go with the stories--but this will delay everything,
so it depends on everyone's sense of timing.
At this point I'd like to solicit some specific responses.
Distribution people: could you sell this into bookstores? Marketing
people: would anyone care? Publishing generalists and commentators:
would this project be a fair test of our systems? Others: would you
have fun tinkering with and word-of-mouthing this project as a start?
Everyone: what amazing opportunities and/or obvious pitfalls have I
missed? And do you agree, or not, on the focus on output rather than
input, for now?
I'd also like those who haven't introduced themselves to do so. It
needn't be elaborate, but we're about to get serious, I think, and I'd
like to know who I'm dealing with. So please, at a minimum, give us
your full name. In addition, I'd prefer that we not create another
zillion conversational threads at this time. Let's focus on this one,
getting the vision sorted, and the introductions.
Nicola
On Jan 19, 9:19 am, JenniferD <
i...@jenniferdurham.com> wrote:
> Hi All-
>
> I want to get this thread started because I think we are losing
> focus. Or maybe just disagreeing, I don't know. Lets define what we
> are doing here.
>
> The idea is to experiment with publishing, yes? What exactly is the
> experiment and what is it's purpose?
>
> I've been thinking of starting this thread,and I just read Malinda's
> post, so I wanted to get it started. I'll have more to say later, but
> for now here is this.
>
> I don’t think that what Malinda is referring to in the 'Karina's idea'
> thread is what we talked about in the beginning, nor do I think it is
> a done deal. It is just talk at this point.
>
> I disagree that the collective/coop would not be beneficial or
> attractive to ‘established’ authors. In fact I would say that Nicola
> is an established author. I think she has described herself as a mid-
> list author in the past, and I think that is a category of people that
> could benefit from this endeavor a great deal.
>
> The experiment is, I think to look at new avenues for publishing.
> Many current authors could benefit from this because ‘publishing is
> broken.’
http://asknicola.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-story-collection-cold-har...
> This is not just for new authors/artists.
>
> I can think of several reasons why even best selling authors might
> want to join in. And I see no reason to exclude any ‘big names’ who
> want to join in – it could only help us IMO.
>
> Malinda, I am very sorry to hear of your decision. I hope that you
> will re-consider or at least hang around and see what develops here;
> it may turn out to be something you still feel like participating in.
>
> Maybe we should all go back and re-read a couple of Nicola’s posts on
> this matter:
http://asknicola.blogspot.com/2008/12/i-have-dream.htmlhttp://asknicola.blogspot.com/2008/12/publishing-permaculture-vs-slas...http://asknicola.blogspot.com/2008/11/whoa-scary-publishing-news.html