The Self-Publishing E-bubble: Coming Soon to a Reality Near You

Happy Ides of March! Have I got some prophetic news for you today! Want to make a million bucks? Want to break down the publishing hierarchy’s gates? Want to get that book out worldwide to millions of people in the whisper of a few short button-pushing moments? All of this can be yours and more!

Does any of this sound a LOT like the blogosphere bubble that came and went last decade? Did anyone “get rich” (with or without a lot of hard work?). Yes. A few. A very few did. The larger point is that it was a bubble. People got excited. Big promises were made. Loads of investments committed. The bubble burst. People fell from grace, weeping and gnashing their teeth. Do we still love blogs? Well, yeah! You’re reading one, right? Do we see them for what they are in this Age of Information? Not to burst your bubble, but hopefully by now, yes, we have checked back in with reality.

Except now there are books to be written! Money to be made! And, you know what, I dare say that if you’re really ready to act fast and maximize your opportunities (to use entrepreneurial language), you may be able to get in on the act.

Ewan Morrison, a writer who has found he makes far more money and generates a far wider audience by writing about the end of books as opposed to publishing them, points out that a lot of what the internet gurus have been predicting for some time is actually coming true. It’s true that books–cultural artifacts–are becoming increasingly harder to move across the entire industry (not just for you literary types). Ironically or not, you still do need to have “that book,” it’s just that the book is more a credentializing agent, which gets you the things that do increasingly pay: speeches and gigs. For an extremely detailed analysis as to why exactly we can call this whole thing a bubble, see Morrison’s article.

These are heady times in social media and ebook publication. Ebook sales are already outpacing print sales. Publisher’s Weekly offers loads of other stats to verify the point. Self publishing gurus emerge daily with programs and advice on how to self publish your book. While there are limitations to social media’s power and reach (there’s a reason why it’s called “social” media as opposed to “mainstream,” right?), it’s a juggernaut. First, however, there’s a difference between social media and ebook publishing, and there’s even another difference between publishing an ebook and self-publishing an ebook. This may seem obvious, but the lines do begin to blur between the distinctions.

There is hype, and I’m not saying don’t believe it. The bubble is happening. My prediction is that we’re probably at the relative beginning of a bubble, but it is a bubble.

Tagged , , , , ,

Re-directing “The Director of Happiness”

You know, there really is a lot to get excited about with the whole power of social media and networking thing. No doubt about it. But for as much as so many of us want to be pioneers, in a lot of ways you can really only go so far as the industry is ready. As my friend Terry Hawkins says, “If you’re the only guy in town with a telephone, there’s no one to talk to.”

The idea of trying to be so ahead of the curve that you literally have “no one to talk to” relates to the concept that Dan Cafaro and I explored with the release of my debut novel, The Director of Happiness. On first blush, it seemed pioneering, entrepreneurial, and that it might even generate extra buzz. The strategy, as detailed in a previous post would justify the publisher’s expense to cast it into print form and distribution, but also have a built-in audience (those who had already invested in it as readers and donors). Then there were these little problems to consider, like: (a) Do people want to read the vast majority of a novel on their computer (which is where it would seem most would); (b) Can you spin the novel through the book review circuit once it’s been released (or mostly released) online?; (c) Is it worth the risk for one’s literary debut? In other words, would it not be seen as a second-class citizen, having to develop funds on its own to justify publisher expense? Or, on the other hand, would it seem like we were giving it specialized attention over the other Atticus authors, especially if the book were a success?; (d) And if the project failed, beside the public humiliation, what then exactly, especially after so much of the novel had been previously released?

Those were mostly my concerns, anyway.

One unexpected creative direction came out of resolving another issue: How can we keep the original readers interested in purchasing a copy of the book in print form if they’ve already read it? The first solution was to keep them hooked, and not release another section until a certain goal had been made. Another was to at least keep the last two chapters from being released online (but that didn’t seem completely fair). Yet another was simply give the project more than a two-month deadline to fulfill its funding goals. But other than “cutting off” content, I had another idea. What about at certain levels of donor funding, the author agrees to write other perspectives? The Director of Happiness was a monologue in the voice of the “Cool Hunter,” J.J. Fleming, about 48,000 words plus another 10,000 worth of footnoted material. He addresses his thoughts to his “Director of Happiness,” and the focus of his thoughts are on his wife E. What if I gave voice to one or both of them? How would that change the novel?

In the synergy of brainstorming, Dan got really excited about what the Director Happiness might have to say, and we both agreed it would make the title of the novel even more compelling. Not only that, but she had a lot to say. I had no idea how formed the character already was in my mind, and how much must have been unconsciously brewing. We’ve both decided to hold off production until we see how her perspective works in contrast and relationship with J.J. Fleming’s and go from there.

In some ways it’s back to the drawing board inasmuch as I’m writing a whole new perspective for a novel that I had polished and copy-edited to near “perfection.” Now that I’m over 2/3 done with her POV, though, I couldn’t be happier. It adds a compelling layer of complication and sophistication to the story, and ironically enough, came as a result of trying to be a part of innovative strategies for getting a book you believe in “out there.”

Ahead of my time? Maybe not. But I’m thrilled with where my first novel is headed both literally and figuratively.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The Big Deal about Blurbs

Where did the funny little word get its start? 1906 in an essay collection by humorist Frank Gellet Burgess, “Are You a Bromide?” Is it ironic that the word bromide actually means “a conventional, boring, or trite saying?” Probably not. Actually, Burgess invented numerous funny words but only “blurb” and “bromide” ended up gaining widespread circulation. However we exactly feel about the self-promotion of  blurbs (because that’s really what it is both from a publisher’s and an author’s perspective), it’s more than a funny-sounding word. It’s a legitimate, well-established technique that’s here to stay. Now, you can even join the epublishing bubble and “make your own book” at blurb.com. And venture capitalists like Mickey Hess will blurb your book in 24-hours.

Today, the blurb comes in many forms and fashions. As a publisher I’m often asked this question from first time writers, “How many blurbs do I need?” As a writer, I’ve had to think strategically about who to ask, who to call on to help promote the book. As both a writer and a publisher, I’ve long since realized that it must be a rare thing indeed for a blurb to actually generate sales for a book. Different writers and publishers, as one may guess, have different opinions on the subject. For instance, in a very real way, it probably does help generate sales if the idea of blurbing a book actually is intended to give the appearance of credibility. And when those endorsers are big names in a given field, authors and personalities we trust or who’s credentials and platform so large they can’t be ignored or denied, perhaps we are more inclined to purchase that particular book that we wouldn’t have if we were going all blank slate.

Matt Bell, an editor for Dzanc and the literary online magazine, The Collagist, suggests this approach:

Pick writers you want your book to be in conversation with, because it’s possible the reader will see their names dozens of times while handling your book during reading, and begin to associate your work and theirs. This is more important (and less cynical a goal) than any sales bump a blurb might offer, as it can be a way of influencing how your book will be read and thought of: As an example, my books and chapbooks have been blurbed by Brian Evenson, Laird Hunt, Matthew Derby, Amelia Gray, Deb Olin Unferth, Norman Lock, Karen Russell, Lucy Corin, Chris Bachelder, Lance Olsen, and Michael Kimball, among others. That’s almost exactly the party I’d like my books to attend, and despite all the complaining people do about blurbs, I’m so grateful to these people for helping me get there.

There is a lot to be said for this communal approach. Of course, few of us would complain to have our book blurbed by national circulations like The New York Times, The San Franciso Chronicle, The Philadephia Examiner, and so on. Nor would we complain if someone famous outside literary circles felt so inclined. Big or small, a celebrity or colleague and friend, blurbs are one of those funny little literary conventions that we should embrace.

Tagged , , , , ,

Conjure a Spirit of Playfulness

You’ve probably heard writers declaiming how hard it is to write. Maybe that’s why there’s a virtual cottage industry on the topic of writer’s block. Nearly every day I face the emptiness of the open page, especially when working on a first draft. What’s ahead is literally blank, and I’m faced with the same mini-crisis. Okay, that’s a slight exaggeration. Some days it’s a full-scale crisis. I believe it was Grace Paley who once said that we don’t write about what we know; we write about we don’t know. Oh, lots of writers have said very similar things. Tobias Wolff said every time you write you’re stepping off into darkness and hoping for some light.

How do you find out what you don’t know? Well, you venture into unknown territory. It’s scary going places we haven’t been, and I would have to think that even the most meticulous plotters and planners must experience plenty of unexpected directions. It’s part of the crazy-making magic of writing. It’s part of the reason we get–as Ann Lamott has famously noted in Bird by Bird–shitty first drafts. But whether or not you carry a map, and however seriously you want to propel the momentum of your narrative, the point at which you break away from the fear and dive in and start “just going,” is the moment (however fractional) that you loosen up and give over to the genius of your intuition, a far better guide than your own genius.

In the end, that’s what fiction is anyway. It’s exploring, not laying down tracts of information. Not preaching or teaching, but revealing and dramatizing. You get to the drama by allowing your sometimes stumbling, bumbling self to wade out into that water where you might stub your toe, slip or get picked to death by flesh-eating piranhas. But you might also discover a tidal pool of anemones and sea urchins, hermit crabs and starfish. Maybe even a treasure box of Spanish dobloons from some ancient warship that sunk off the nearby coast. Is it work or play the fiction writer is after? There’s so much of both that when you settle down and get immersed in what you’re doing, hopefully the distinction between the two blurs into one.

Okay, I’ve put it off long enough this morning. Posts like this are relatively easy. Right now, I’m writing another narrative point-of-view to a novel I’d already considered finished. I have no idea what she’s going to say, but she wants to come into being and I better open up to wherever it is she’ll lead.

Wish me luck!

Tagged , , , , , ,

Already Ancient: An Attempt to ‘Get Real’ with My Nine-Year-Old First Born Son

My oldest son is a lot like me. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of differences and we appreciate each of our children for their own individual selves and all that. But it’s the ways in which Eliah is clearly a lot like me that, well, scares me. Okay, wait. Not just the ways in which Eliah is like me. It’s also the ways in which I feel like I’m behaving like my dad. There’s a lot to admire about my dad. A lot. Things between us have come a long way, especially in the latter half of my life. It’s been great. But so much of what I wanted to be as a dad–at least to my young sons–was a reaction against my “old man.”

Parenting, I now know, is hard. Being a parent has changed my perspective about all that ‘what my parents did to me’ stuff, and has given me important insight into what I never saw very clearly until far after the fact. Myself.

Sometimes it’s just a little thing that sets an otherwise ordinary, or even positive evening, into a downward spiral. This evening was shaping up to be one of those.

I tried hard not to be wordy, to talk too much and cloud the issue. But I was doing it in spite of myself. I was saying, “I want us to start all over. I want you to take responsibility for your own actions instead of point the finger of blame (I was actually saying ‘finger of blame’), and acting defensive and denying everything. This can be the last time you’ll ever have a consequence if you’ll learn from this. If you’ll be honest. That’s what’s so upsetting, not that you were sneaking a few moments on the TV downstairs (after all we’d been through this past week about ‘screen time’), but that you’re not owning up to it.” Stuff like that.

To keep everything from going too abstract, and to give him some “connective tissue,” I gave him an illustration of Papa, my own father. While there is plenty that I can see in the personality similarities between each of us first-borns (three first born males in a row), my own dad, Papa, seems to have reacted/responded in a strikingly different way than either I did, or than Eliah seems to be trending toward. I said, “You know, Papa’s mom and dad were much harder on him than he was to me, or than mommy and I are to you. They would spank him hard and a lot. Sometimes with a belt for all kinds of reasons. For talking disrespectfully. For being dishonest. They were very strict. And you know what? Even though he didn’t always think their punishments were fair, he respected them and he did what they asked. He learned from his consequences, and that’s what I want you to do.”

This was the grand finale. I was bringing home my point through a narrative, through a family illustration, through an emotional plea. He said, “Well you sure don’t know anything about what it means to be a nine-year-old today.” Is he nine or nineteen?

Am I really that old? Or is a nine-year-old just so wrapped up in the ego-self that he can’t see beyond his “consequences”? Maybe I should just let more slide.

Have I mentioned that parenting is hard?

Tagged , , , ,

Resonance and Richard Jackson’s Associative Vigor

Richard Jackson’s latest collection of poems, Resonance, was quietly released from The Ashland Poetry Press in 2010. Why “quietly”? It’s not that poetry collections, as a rule, generally get a lot of fanfare. It’s just that for someone with Jackson’s writing, teaching, and humanitarian achievements and honors being as numerous and distinctive as, dare I say, anyone in the English-speaking world, one might think he’d garner a little more attention. Not that he needs it, or seeks it. He just goes on developing a passion in generations of undergraduate students at UT-C, running the twice-annual Meacham Writers’ Workshop (as the late great William Matthews called it, “The Rick Jackson Pro Am”), taking writing students on an annual international, cross-cultural trip, and, oh yeah, writing.

I suppose the idea is to let the verse speak for itself. What a concept! In a day and age in which the effluvia of self-promotion has become more important to being read than actually writing outstanding content, what we get is far too much forgettable material. Resonance contains what its title suggests it does.

While my first thought was that resonance means something that lasts, or endures, something that resonates, when I looked it up, I found numerous definitions. In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at a greater amplitude at some frequencies than at others. Another definition of resonance, in noun form, is a synchronous gravitational relationship of two celestial bodies (as moons) that orbit a third (as a planet) which can be expressed as a simple ratio of their orbital periods. Also, in music, a : the intensification and enriching of a musical tone by supplementary vibration b : a quality imparted to voiced sounds by vibration in anatomical resonating chambers or cavities (as the mouth or the nasal cavity) c : a quality of richness or variety d : a quality of evoking response.

Years ago, when I first came across his award-winning collection Heartwall I knew immediately I was in the hands of a master, and that I’d seen nothing else quite like it. Having come out of a writing program only two hours south of where Richard Jackson has resided and taught for well over 30 years now, I was also surprised I’d not heard of him. Part of the “quiet” release of his latest collection comes as no surprise. This is a poet who, it would seem, is not comfortable with the self-promotion that so many writers (and artists of all kinds) are increasingly expected to do. Clearly, he wants the work to speak for itself. It does. Perhaps, though, it’s too bad that more people aren’t aware?

David Wojahn writes, “It’s the combination of soulfulness, intellectual rigor, and a courtly, almost Petrarchian ardor for the beloved that has always fueled Richard Jackson’s poetry. They are also poems of dazzling associative vigor–funny, elegiac, and political by turns. I wish that more of our poets possessed his big heart and breadth…” This is not hyperbole.

Richard Jackson’s poetry is anything but quiet. It’s broad and expansive. What do I mean? Historically, linguistically, with its pull toward current politics and human rights, and a constant perspective-making with his cosmic (and scientific) tropes, this is the kind of verse that literally takes us out of ourselves. The non-linear, discursive quality of the associations he draws upon feel free, energetic and exciting in the dream-like way that such writing urges–and it always ends up taking you somewhere. In fact, that’s one of the important aspects of how Jackson teaches a workshop. He begins by asking his students, “Where does the poem begin, and where does it take us?”

And where does a beginning that infuses the micro/macro-cosmic like this set us up take us?

“It’s because the earth continues to wobble on its axis / that we continue to stumble down the streets of the heart.”

Jackson seems keenly aware of his voice’s style and voice with poems like, “Why I Digress So.” He begins,

“It’s only when we don’t know where we’re going / said Oscar Wilde, that we can ever find our way.”

Readers may have to put together the reason “why” he digresses the way he does, but surely it would seem that he does so to find his way. In “Fines Double in Work Zone,” he begins,

“Reading a bad poem is like having a bad dream: You can’t / ask for your money back.”

Ironically enough, such effusive, associational writing comes across as so casual and possibly “random,” that it looks easy. It’s actually very difficult to write this way and maintain “tension.” Most verse-composers are urged to hone their words to the minimum so they carry as much meaning and tension as possible. Good advice for the vast majority. After a very short while “casual writing” becomes just that, which means it becomes empty rhetoric. Few voices can move toward the effusive end of the continuum like Pablo Neruda or Walt Whitman. Mark Halliday frequently achieves it. Richard Jackson makes the most of it. Even for all this, however, he is conscious enough of his style and possibly its limitations that he is not above a self-parody as he performs in ‘Fines Double’ from the point-of-view of a reviewer (who ends up more like a curmudgeonly critic).

The cover and the promotional pageantry may not get you to grab this book, but his verse and reputation stands alone–and on its own–and I couldn’t recommend a book of contemporary verse more highly.

Tagged , , , , , ,

The Fear of the Countless Others

No matter how progressive people think they are, we’re generally afraid of change. Okay, that part is understood. We fear the unknown and all that. But my question today has to do with digital media and the great fear and resistance to it.

Do we fear the sheer amount of those we’re confronted with when it comes to the availability of material through the online and digital world?

Of course I understand that we can always go to a library or a bookstore and see the sheer volume of material and possibly feel the same way. But for some reason, I don’t think it works the same way. Here’s why. Libraries and bookstores aren’t as current. It’s understood you’re walking through a “history” of material as much as what’s current.

Maybe we’re intimidated by the sheer immensity of data from the digital world. For instance, for $19.95 (I’m not kidding) I was able instantaneously to “whisper” 12 of Jose Saramago’s novels to my little Kindle. Other than the final novel published posthumously (Cain), that was the genius Portuguese author’s entire body of work. Forget the price. Forget the availability. Just think of the implications. Have you ever gone to a bookstore, used or one with the clean and stimulating Starbuck’s smell of a Barnes and Noble, and purchased 12 novels (say, even 10!) by the same author? Not only are we swallowed up as readers, but we see before us how our content is swallowed up in microchips.

Not only that, but it seems like we’re swallowed up by having less means to distinguish ourselves from each other now. It used to be so simple, right? Get published by such-and-such press really meant something. But it’s becoming less obvious who’s really writing the best material now and how to identify them. Greatness used to mean you were on top of others in a fairly clear hierarchy. Will it be harder to identify talent now? Harder to find those gems? Harder to rise to the top from sheer skill?

The national creative writing conference, AWP, begins this week and each attending writer will be faced with thousands and thousands of other writers. Isn’t it enough that we live our lives hearing about the “sheer amount” of submissions that literary agents, publishers big and small, and magazines and journals of all shapes and sizes, that we spend our time perpetually getting off “the slush pile”? We all want to be the 1% let in through the gate. Why? Because we’re special. Not only that, but we spent a lot of time on this stuff. Sacrificed!

What happens, though, when we really do throw open the gates to the other 99% protesting on the other side of our elite resting place? More importantly, how we will ever make a name for ourselves? How will anyone be remembered for all time like…T.S. Eliot? Or if someone is, how will it be anything other than random chance and pure luck?

Well, to that I do have an answer. It already is.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Does Brainstorming Really Work?

I’ve always loved it. This whole idea of team everything and working together creatively in a non-judgmental way. But what if the evidence proved that collective brainstorming really doesn’t work? The idea of brainstorming, which actually began with the publication of  in 1948, Your Creative Power by Alex Osborn, is like religion in a lot of work places. And you can see why. When the idea is to go for as many ideas as possible, for quantity over quality, for not critiquing or censoring anything so that everyone will talk and feel like they’re contributing, you’ll naturally have a more engaged and happier work force.

In a recent New Yorker article, Jonah Lehrer, argues that brainstorming is a myth, and quotes Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, who summarizes the science:

“Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.”

Is it true, then, that we really work better on our own as compared to those who gather to brainstorm? Not exactly. It’s just that not all brainstorms are created equal.

It’s not that group work is all bad and the new turn should be to send everyone back to their rooms until further notice. It’s that there is a fundamental fallacy behind the notion that even the merest hint of criticism kills the “delicate flower” (as Osborn once called it) of the creative impulse. In fact, recent research demonstrates that while it is good for a group to feel free to be wide open to all ideas, the best work comes from those who also debate and even criticize others’ ideas. Dissent stimulates ideas.

You know what this makes me think of? Writing and reading book reviews. After graduate school and years of workshops I had a deep aversion, a kind of pendulum swing over-reaction to anything that smacked of the “critical” or the chin-thrusting fastidiousness of an elitist snob or judge. Then, Gerry LaFemina asked me to write an in-depth review for Review Revue, a newspaper-styled format which evaluated and discussed contemporary poetry. For some reason, the timing was right I guess, by virtue of reading analysis of other poetry I felt an intellectual hunger and an emotional creative drive. In other words, I was creatively stimulated doing what is considered a non-creative task, the reading and evaluation of others’ work. I realized the act of reviewing is a kind of collective communal act in which one puts one’s own (hopefully informed) opinions in the public sphere for the mutual benefit of driving the art.

It’s not like all creative brainstorming doesn’t come back and evaluate the effectiveness of what the open-ended creative sessions yielded, but studies indicate by a wide margin that when the creativity is developed within the context of specific, controlled measures of creativity and debate, that the time is used more effectively. Criticism can wake us up to new ideas because it forces us to move below the surface of predictability and consider alternative perspectives. Essentially, it wakes up our minds.

Tagged , , , ,

Climate Change or La Nina? Who Cares. A Plague is Coming.

We can get our share of snow here in what is called the midsouth. Last year, Hamilton County used up every one of its snow days and then some. This didn’t seem to matter to the school board, though. They still let school out as previously scheduled. (I’m not bitter, though. Just think of all that extra parent-child bonding!) Last year about this time I was lifting up the enormous head of a pirate snowman that would take six weeks to fully melt.

This winter we’ve had an hour’s worth of a flurry one morning and that’s it. Today, a high of 71. So what’s the deal?

Not that I miss the snow so much. It’s just that you know you may be in trouble when you walk out on your back deck in mid-February and a healthy-size housefly resting beside your door actually speaks. “Just wait till my friends join me and see if you can keep us outside!” this one says. “And when the mosquitoes join the cause, your summer will be officially miserable!”

Ordinarily, this might be upsetting. This week, though, you’ve been thrown into outbursts of violent sneezes in rapid succession. “Achoo” doesn’t really do justice to whatever allergen (ragweed? pine pollen?) is tripping your sinuses.  AH-BLEWEY! AYE-CARUMBA! might be a little closer. You rub your itchy eyes, tearing up, and head back inside for a tissue as if you hadn’t heard the fly with your own ears.

If snow hadn’t buried your town several times over last year, you might call it “Global Warming,” even though that’s no longer politically correct. Much more appropriate to call it “Climate Change.” Or, when all else fails, blame it on El Nino or La Nina. I’ve been hearing La Nina this year. I don’t know. I never was too good at science.

What are the advantages? Well, it’s not cold. You can start your garden two months early, which means heirloom tomatoes in May? What else? The blooms start earlier? You start mowing your lawn in March?

I know how to count my blessings. When the summer hits, however, I may want to heed this little bluebottle fly’s warning and head somewhere north to avoid the coming plague.

Tagged , , , ,

What Can Authors and Publishers Learn from the Music Industry?

May you live in interesting times is a phrase popularly purported to be an ancient Chinese curse. For the publishing and music industries, it might not be too much to say that times have never been more interesting since the beginning of the printed word itself (a la Gutenberg) and the invention of the electric guitar. Perhaps it’s not so ironic that Project Gutenberg claims to be the first producer of free ebooks? However you view it, change is happening extremely fast. The times are “interesting,” and for a good number of professionals this is a curse. For most, though, it’s a boon.

Still, it’s not clear how the democratization of either the print or music industries can best be used to benefit the vast majority for whom the gates have been thrown wide open. For the past two or three years, however, as I began to put my toe back in the music pond and actually started considering how to promote One Shoe Untied’s music, I’ve been working on this very issue. (It’s beside the point the band didn’t work out.)

Here’s my question:

Why is it considered cool/innovative/grassroots for a band to “start their own label,” but for a writer, it’s still considered “minor leagues”?

In some ways the path to publication as a novelist sounds simple enough. You break through with a literary agent, get published by a New York publisher (one of the Big 6), and PRESTO, you’ve made it. By some estimates, the Big 6 still own distribution spots in about 80% of the brick-and-mortar booksellers stalls. Does it matter that it doesn’t sell well? Yes and no. Mostly yes of course. But there are ways around a substandard first showing, especially if one continues to simply write well. With the hardest part out of the way, breaking through in the first place, it’s not like you’re blackballed because you didn’t hit the bestseller list. On the other hand, for someone like me, a “debut novelist of literary fiction” (yikes!), whose narrative takes place more or less in the course of an hour, few literary agents are going to swing the gates open if for no other reason than it doesn’t exactly smack of bestseller status to a Big 6 publisher (an understatement to be sure). So, Atticus Books and I are trying something new, something we’d like to see as innovative. Lately, however, especially with a national writers’ conference coming up rapidly (AWP), I’ve been worried about how my approach will be viewed in the eyes of the literary community.

The breakdown of the major recording companies had to deal with the breakdown first, and it’s been well-documented that they made massive mistakes. While iTunes has certainly figured out a lot about how to maximize their opportunity to profit from recording artists, the truth is people still widely torrent whatever it is they can’t or don’t want to pay for. While the development of ebook readers has helped the publishing industry avoid gaffes such as hunting down purported offenders instead of seeing the very clear writing on the wall and realizing new ways to monetize opportunities, why are attitudes so slow to change about the means and methods of publishing?

What can publishers and the creators of publishing content (writers!) learn from what’s happened (and continues to) in the music industry? Wilco’s latest release, The Whole Love, was produced through their very own label and they even decided to sing about it in one song (see video). I wonder if it’s not just publishers and distributors who need to “get with the times,” but authors and writers themselves. If I believe in my work, if I can be the best promoter of my material, if I stand to make far higher royalties on my own, and if I can distribute my material by ebook to the world in (more or less) an instant, why is this not being utterly embraced?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,972 other followers