Writing: 1,212 words
To self-publish, or not to self-publish, that is the question:
As the completion of this manuscript shimmers on the horizon like a spectacular mirage, I have begun to consider its commercial aspects. To wit: just what to do with this everloving novel once I'm satisfied with the writing. And the issue always comes down to the same fundamental dichotomy: traditional publishing, or self-publishing.
Each advantage of traditional publishing comes with a caveat. They can pay for a printing of 100,000 copies, but I may have to wait years for the book to be released. They can pay for a marketing campaign to promote my book, but I have to give my creative rights for a time. They can get my book onto the shelves of Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million, but I have to sacrifice a much greater chunk of royalties.
On the other side of the ledger, if I just go ahead and release the book independently through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Smashwords, and, eventually, print-on-demand, it becomes available when I make it available. Only the copies that are purchased have to be downloaded or printed, so there is no production cost to cover for an "initial run". I retain all of my rights to the work, though I have to promote and market the book on my own.
The Gatekeeper Argument is a particularly interesting one that holds that traditional publishers have acted as a filter that keeps inferior writing off the market. One problem with the argument is that publishers have never been the gatekeepers of quality. They have only ever been the gatekeepers of the means of production, and quality has only ever been one commercial concern among many.
The thinking is that better books will sell more copies and make more money, and that publishers are uniquely qualified to judge the marketability of a novel as a function of its quality. But there are enough novels that have sold well and made money without being written particularly well to perforate that logic. Publishers are not, after all, in the business of making art. They are in the business of making money.
They are middle-men. Writers produce works of creativity, and readers consume works of creativity, but publishers have traditionally been the channel through which writers have delivered their work to readers. Publishing is, in fact, one massive delivery system; it is the FedEx of creativity. Traditional publishers provide packaging and conveyance, and take a huge portion of the profits to cover their own production costs.
But that's changing.
Electronic publishing and print-on-demand are making it possible for writers to provide their products directly to readers without the bloated costs of production, and to keep more of the profits for their work in the process. The e-pub and POD trend is toward a more democratic system than the antique autocracy of traditional publishing. E-pub/POD allow a book to be judged by the readers paying for it, rather than by a corporation whose primary concern is making money off of other people's work.
I've also heard the assertion that, without gatekeepers controlling the flow of books, the marketplace will become flooded with low-quality products. Well: so what? They aren't taking up shelf space in a book store or a warehouse, so who cares how much debris is floating on the virtual sea of merchandise?
And why should readers should only have access to books subjectively deemed "good" by some corporation? Why should readers not be allowed to determine for themselves if a particular piece of writing meets their standard of quality? As a reader myself, why should someone else get to decide what writing is and is not available to me? I've disagreed with other people on whether or a book was good or not enough times to know that readers have varying tastes and varying measures of value.
If only ten readers or 100 readers or 1,000 readers would enjoy a book, why should they be denied access to it? Because the cost of producing and promoting only 1,000 copies of a book is too high to warrant producing and promoting only 1,000 copies of a book? Not any more. With print-on-demand, only one copy of a book is printed at the time that the reader purchases it, leaving no unsold copies to house or take a loss on.
So, yeah: I think I just talked myself into independent publishing. Of course, none of this matters one iota until I have a finished product, which is why I wrote 1,212 words last night in one-and-a-half sections, bringing the total total manuscript to 98,571 words.
As the completion of this manuscript shimmers on the horizon like a spectacular mirage, I have begun to consider its commercial aspects. To wit: just what to do with this everloving novel once I'm satisfied with the writing. And the issue always comes down to the same fundamental dichotomy: traditional publishing, or self-publishing.
Each advantage of traditional publishing comes with a caveat. They can pay for a printing of 100,000 copies, but I may have to wait years for the book to be released. They can pay for a marketing campaign to promote my book, but I have to give my creative rights for a time. They can get my book onto the shelves of Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million, but I have to sacrifice a much greater chunk of royalties.
On the other side of the ledger, if I just go ahead and release the book independently through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Smashwords, and, eventually, print-on-demand, it becomes available when I make it available. Only the copies that are purchased have to be downloaded or printed, so there is no production cost to cover for an "initial run". I retain all of my rights to the work, though I have to promote and market the book on my own.
The Gatekeeper Argument is a particularly interesting one that holds that traditional publishers have acted as a filter that keeps inferior writing off the market. One problem with the argument is that publishers have never been the gatekeepers of quality. They have only ever been the gatekeepers of the means of production, and quality has only ever been one commercial concern among many.
The thinking is that better books will sell more copies and make more money, and that publishers are uniquely qualified to judge the marketability of a novel as a function of its quality. But there are enough novels that have sold well and made money without being written particularly well to perforate that logic. Publishers are not, after all, in the business of making art. They are in the business of making money.
They are middle-men. Writers produce works of creativity, and readers consume works of creativity, but publishers have traditionally been the channel through which writers have delivered their work to readers. Publishing is, in fact, one massive delivery system; it is the FedEx of creativity. Traditional publishers provide packaging and conveyance, and take a huge portion of the profits to cover their own production costs.
But that's changing.
Electronic publishing and print-on-demand are making it possible for writers to provide their products directly to readers without the bloated costs of production, and to keep more of the profits for their work in the process. The e-pub and POD trend is toward a more democratic system than the antique autocracy of traditional publishing. E-pub/POD allow a book to be judged by the readers paying for it, rather than by a corporation whose primary concern is making money off of other people's work.
I've also heard the assertion that, without gatekeepers controlling the flow of books, the marketplace will become flooded with low-quality products. Well: so what? They aren't taking up shelf space in a book store or a warehouse, so who cares how much debris is floating on the virtual sea of merchandise?
And why should readers should only have access to books subjectively deemed "good" by some corporation? Why should readers not be allowed to determine for themselves if a particular piece of writing meets their standard of quality? As a reader myself, why should someone else get to decide what writing is and is not available to me? I've disagreed with other people on whether or a book was good or not enough times to know that readers have varying tastes and varying measures of value.
If only ten readers or 100 readers or 1,000 readers would enjoy a book, why should they be denied access to it? Because the cost of producing and promoting only 1,000 copies of a book is too high to warrant producing and promoting only 1,000 copies of a book? Not any more. With print-on-demand, only one copy of a book is printed at the time that the reader purchases it, leaving no unsold copies to house or take a loss on.
So, yeah: I think I just talked myself into independent publishing. Of course, none of this matters one iota until I have a finished product, which is why I wrote 1,212 words last night in one-and-a-half sections, bringing the total total manuscript to 98,571 words.