Politics of Publishing
This post started as one more argument for e-books and why the publishing industry seems to be overlooking some important things and yadda yadda yadda. But you don't need that. If you're even interested in the debate, you can find hundreds if not thousands of similar blogposts and articles supporting either viewpoint. Google it.
Instead, I want to talk about what I think is swiftly becoming a false, and distracting, dichotomy.
There's a war going on, haven't you heard? The self-publishing revolutionaries are rising up against their traditional publishing overlords! Or, alternatively, the uneducated mob is trying to push it's swill onto the poor, unsuspecting masses!
Thing is, I don't think either of those is accurate.
I've been reading Joe Konrath's Blog for some time now, and at first I was carried away by the momentum and emotion behind the self-publishing movement - and make no mistake, it's a movement. However, the problem with movements is that they tend to be based a lot more on how people feel than how they function.
A part of me is still conditioned to believe there is merit in traditional publishing. I went to school for writing, and there is a LOT out there to be filtered. Workshops taught me that. A lot of people believe that writing is just a matter of picking up a pen/laptop/typewriter and mashing out a brilliant novel. After all, we're all speaking some language. Surely that's enough to get by, right? My experience reading passive voice (though not inherently evil) and an overuse of exposition (again, not inherently evil) has taught me that writing is a skill, not something you can just "do" because you know how to string words together. Traditional publishers can filter out and/or improve a lot of that writing by calling it into question.
Then again, there is a deeper conditioning bestowed upon me by my hard-working mother: question authority. Just because someone is a cop, doesn't mean they are righteous, and just because a large conglomerate has the experience and tradition of gatekeeping, doesn't mean they have taste.
So what do we do? Do we just throw everything in a pile and let readers sort it out? Or do we decide to stick with legacy publishing and go down with the ship? It's a false choice and the answer is neither.
This is the false dichotomy. There aren't only two ways to skin a cat or fix an industry and pretending their are is just unproductive. It shouldn't be an us vs. them issue. They can work together. For example, what about publishing giants paring down to just print deals? Let the authors keep the digital revenue, and the big guys can keep their physical revenue. From there, they can still offer editing services, and the "approval" stamp. Authors will still be allowed control.
That is only one possible solution and it isn't a battle, but a collaboration. By constantly duking it out, we're not going to find a viable solution all around. Instead, the book industry might crumble all around us as we're too busy fighting to fix it.
What solutions do you think there are to problem? I'm curious to know what else is out there that isn't just "death to publishers!" or "self-pubbers suck!"
Instead, I want to talk about what I think is swiftly becoming a false, and distracting, dichotomy.
There's a war going on, haven't you heard? The self-publishing revolutionaries are rising up against their traditional publishing overlords! Or, alternatively, the uneducated mob is trying to push it's swill onto the poor, unsuspecting masses!
Thing is, I don't think either of those is accurate.
I've been reading Joe Konrath's Blog for some time now, and at first I was carried away by the momentum and emotion behind the self-publishing movement - and make no mistake, it's a movement. However, the problem with movements is that they tend to be based a lot more on how people feel than how they function.
A part of me is still conditioned to believe there is merit in traditional publishing. I went to school for writing, and there is a LOT out there to be filtered. Workshops taught me that. A lot of people believe that writing is just a matter of picking up a pen/laptop/typewriter and mashing out a brilliant novel. After all, we're all speaking some language. Surely that's enough to get by, right? My experience reading passive voice (though not inherently evil) and an overuse of exposition (again, not inherently evil) has taught me that writing is a skill, not something you can just "do" because you know how to string words together. Traditional publishers can filter out and/or improve a lot of that writing by calling it into question.
Then again, there is a deeper conditioning bestowed upon me by my hard-working mother: question authority. Just because someone is a cop, doesn't mean they are righteous, and just because a large conglomerate has the experience and tradition of gatekeeping, doesn't mean they have taste.
So what do we do? Do we just throw everything in a pile and let readers sort it out? Or do we decide to stick with legacy publishing and go down with the ship? It's a false choice and the answer is neither.
This is the false dichotomy. There aren't only two ways to skin a cat or fix an industry and pretending their are is just unproductive. It shouldn't be an us vs. them issue. They can work together. For example, what about publishing giants paring down to just print deals? Let the authors keep the digital revenue, and the big guys can keep their physical revenue. From there, they can still offer editing services, and the "approval" stamp. Authors will still be allowed control.
That is only one possible solution and it isn't a battle, but a collaboration. By constantly duking it out, we're not going to find a viable solution all around. Instead, the book industry might crumble all around us as we're too busy fighting to fix it.
What solutions do you think there are to problem? I'm curious to know what else is out there that isn't just "death to publishers!" or "self-pubbers suck!"
Comments
Post a Comment