Are Books Dead and Can Authors Survive?

[Stephen Palmer]

Always aim too high. Every single time.

 

[Ian Whates]

Always aim too high. Every single time.

Exactly, you can always adjust your aim downward.

 

[Anne Lyle]

AR go to most of the UK SFF conventions, Scarfy - you have no excuse!

 

[Scarfy]

Well, sadly when they had their open month, I was disqualified because I'd already self-pubbed the first book in the series, even if I was offering up the rewrite.

Not to worry, will approach them over something else

 

[indiewordsmith]

The article tackles an interesting insight with the advent of digital revolution and how it is affecting the writing world. This fact poses great challenge to writers, I must say. However, I don't think writing, as a profession, will be at the brink of extinction. The industry will still balance out. There would still be room for brilliant writers and a market for their literary pieces.

 

[RJM Corbet]

The article tackles an interesting insight with the advent of digital revolution and how it is affecting the writing world. This fact poses great challenge to writers, I must say ...

Even Snipcock and Tweed in 'Private Eye' magazine are beginning to take notice of the fact

 

[J-WO]

Here's a New York Times article on Amazon's bid for publishing hegemony...

Interesting stuff.

 

[Parson]

I agree J-Wo. I think the world is changing and there will be both opportunity and disaster aplenty. My favorite quote was the one by the Amazon exec who said that "the only necessary people are the author and the reader" of a book.

 

[Anne Lyle]

It always makes me smile when self-publishers talk about "sticking it to the man", like Amazon is any more benign than the NY Big Six. They're all in it to make money out of readers and pass on a carefully calculated percentage to the author - Amazon's model just allows the author payments to be spread out amongst more writers.

 

[Scarfy]

I have to wonder just how much editing Amazon will undertaking on novels and if they are willing to do things like translate "British English" to "American English".

I've also got to wonder about how they plan to handle foreign rights and translations, if at all.

I'd like to think they're going to do a little more than just pick up something someone put on Kindle and spin it into book form.

 

[Peter Graham]

I have to wonder just how much editing Amazon will undertaking on novels and if they are willing to do things like translate "British English" to "American English". I've also got to wonder about how they plan to handle foreign rights and translations, if at all.

If J-Wo's article is accurate, I assume that we are looking at collaborative working - a sort of missing link between the traditional publisher/agent/writer model and the newer forms of go-it-alone self publishing.

Amazon will know very well what they are selling. What they can offer a writer is serious marketing clout. If a writer is selling well or has real promise, they can put that clout behind the book, probably with a minimum of editorial input. They will cherry pick the stuff that is already good, rather than working with authors to get something to the point where it stops having promise and starts being good.

As far as rights are concerned, Amazon is available worldwide, so presumably any collaborative agreement covers all sales in all jurisdictions. Translations? My guess is that Amazon will pay if they want it translated, but the writer will share part of the cost which will be settled by Amazon taking a bigger chunk of translation sales.

I'm all in favour. Some agents are forever complaining about how hard they have to work and how no-one understands how difficult their job is. Perhaps initiatives such as this will free them up a bit!

Regards,

Peter

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Ooh, below the belt...

 

[J-WO]

Amazon will know very well what they are selling. What they can offer a writer is serious marketing clout. If a writer is selling well or has real promise, they can put that clout behind the book, probably with a minimum of editorial input. They will cherry pick the stuff that is already good, rather than working with authors to get something to the point where it stops having promise and starts being good.

Hmm, scary, but it also offers up the possibility of editors/script doctors as the new 'super stars' (for lack of a better term) of publishing. Some of them would be responsible for polishing up the initial wave of Amazonian bestsellers and therefore their name attached to another author's project might be a draw to readers. I've often bought music because of the producer involved in recording it- a similar thing might happen here.

 

[Peter Graham]

Hmm, scary, but it also offers up the possibility of editors/script doctors as the new 'super stars' (for lack of a better term) of publishing. Some of them would be responsible for polishing up the initial wave of Amazonian bestsellers and therefore their name attached to another author's project might be a draw to readers. I've often bought music because of the producer involved in recording it- a similar thing might happen here.

You might well be right - but perhaps that is not such a bad thing. At present, we are in a buyer's market - too many wannabe authors and too few opportunities for proper commercial publication.

I'd argue that traditional publishers are still the gatekeepers to quality literature - self publishing has little or no quality control and whilst some self published stuff is excellent, the vast majority is pretty poor and is only a **** stride from vanity publishing.

We are speculating wildly about Amazon's model, of course, but if you are right about the potential prominence of script doctors, we will actually now have two ways to ensure that published work is of semi-decent quality. A 100% increase!

Regards,

Peter

 

[Peter Graham]

Good lord. The name for a rooster didn't make it past the swear box. What about poor little **** Robin?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Here's a New York Times article on Amazon's bid for publishing hegemony...

Interesting stuff.

Well, it remains to be seen how this is put into practice as it grows. So far, it just seems like Amazon might be offering an alternative to "traditional" publishers. In and of itself, there seems to be nothing wrong with that. No one ever said that the existing publishers are the only ones that should remain as publishers in perpetuity.

Of course, if Amazon uses this as a platform to begin quasi-monopolistic practices, then it's not a good thing.

I have to wonder just how much editing Amazon will undertaking on novels and if they are willing to do things like translate "British English" to "American English".

I've also got to wonder about how they plan to handle foreign rights and translations, if at all.

As Peter rightly pointed out, Amazon has a significant international presence. More so, probably, than many traditional publishers. Foreign rights shouldn't be a significant issue. And as for translations, they can simply do what the publishers do: hire professionals to do the job.

I'd like to think they're going to do a little more than just pick up something someone put on Kindle and spin it into book form.

Hopefully not.

 

[J-WO]

And here's another article on the the subject by Sam Harris. As well as being an interesting read, it also has a visual reproduction of the most overused and wearisome saying in recent years.

 

[Ashcroft]

And here's another article on the the subject by Sam Harris. As well as being an interesting read, it also has a visual reproduction of the most overused and wearisome saying in recent years.

With the trepidatious feeling of a fool about to open his mouth and confirm himself as such, I'll try to formulate a response to this thread - although I fear I know too little about this issue to spout any great revelations.

What's particularly telling for me about all sides of the debate here, is that the author market seems to now be divided not only amongst those who've perfected their art (writing) and those who have not, but also amongst the dimension of those who have perfected their business (marketing and publishing) and those who have not.

Authors who possess only the former of the two skills have valid cause to fear the digital revolution. The uprising of the digital market lowers the barrier to entry on basis of art talent, but increases the barrier to success on basis of business talent; an incredible author's works may never be found amongst the general dross that fills online publishing if he lacks the ability to mimic a traditional publisher's role, but a far lesser author's works might be wildly successful if he's capable as a publisher and marketeer.

A particularly good demonstration of this concept was hiding amongst the essay on the blog the above quoted user linked:

a very short book that can be read in 40 minutes—and expected to get a much longer book for $1.99

I do not know this author, hence I do not know the quality of his work (although, given the quality of his blog, his popularity, and the fact he's print published, I'm going to assume he's good at his art). However, this author is clearly not a great businessman. He's not assessed his market before publishing his work online; he's published a work that's very short by the price/length ratio of that market and has then reacted with bafflement when people were dissatisfied.

So what does this teach us about publishing for the digital market? One has to be both talented and business savvy, with a greater emphasis on the latter. This doesn't seem like the end of the author to me, rather the end of the traditional author: the author who has perfected only his art and relies upon his publisher to perfect the business side of the industry. Is this so awful?

I suppose that question is individual in its answer. If you're an author who loves to write, but hates to do business, then it's probably pretty bad. If you're an author who loves to write, and is willing/loves to do the business side of the book market, then it's probably pretty great.

Either way, decrying this whole digital revolution as the death knell of the author seems to be as useful a take on the situation as the Luddites decrying the automated loom as the death of the textile industry: it may end up being the death of the orthodox author, but as long as demand exists for the written word, then the entrepreneurial will find a way to make a profit meeting that demand.

Thankfully for the orthodox author, traditional publishing isn't dead yet. But, like all the entertainment industries who find their neatly defined markets so disrupted by digitization, they will adapt to their new market or they'll fade out.

One final comment I would make is that, alluring as it might be to try to preserve the old ways through government interference, the entire reason capitalism has been so globally successful is that it (eventually) finds the most efficient and beneficial way to meet demand. Disrupting this method through government interference for self-interested reasons will likely end up doing more harm than good to society. If that seems like an odd statement for me to make at this juncture, then await the inevitable claims from the publishing industry that Amazon and digital books are destroying the artist through unfair competition (expect the word 'piracy' to come up a lot and dodgy figures to be thrown around).

Anyway, that's my two pence on the situation.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

from the bookselling side of the coin; I used to be a bookshop manager, my husband is an academic bookseller and we also have a small business doing collectible books. It's really hard out there at the moment; margins are small, and the big boys are definitely undercutting everything, but there is still a very good core of people who love the real thing I sound like an advert. Oh, I should add his specialist independent bookshop had to close this year, and he's now in a highstreet seller, which is the way the business is going, unfortunately.

My niece is wanting a kindle for christmas, she's very young and a real reader, but like a good aunt in a recession my resources don't stretch that far: I have to pay Santa for a trampoline here! so we've got her a double signed first ed. Jaqueline Wilson/ Sharratt book to start the other end of the love... that in a book you get something tactile that you can't throw away; it's just how the market makes that work, and i think it'll bed down over a year or two, become more specialist, and we writers, and sellers, will have to get used to the opportunity of a double platform.

 

[Ashcroft]

I have to pay Santa for a trampoline here!

Bloody Santa and his insistence on payment!

that in a book you get something tactile that you can't throw away; it's just how the market makes that work, and i think it'll bed down over a year or two, become more specialist, and we writers, and sellers, will have to get used to the opportunity of a double platform.

I largely agree with you.

I think there'll be a market for hardcopy books for some time yet, since they add something a digital book cannot: a sense of physicality, and an opportunity to display them openly.