ePublishing, Imagination, and the Reader-Writer Alliance

Much has been written about the evolution of publishing in the digital age and the unprecedented opportunities for readers and writers to connect with each other. But as I noted in the previous blog posting, there’s a recurring criticism that independent publishing has created a giant slush-pile for the readers of the world to wade through.

As someone who is primarily a reader, I beg to differ. If we take a step back to use our imaginations, we could consider the new ways of accessing books differently and without the old lenses of traditional options. For example, pretend we’ve just arrived from a different planet and want something to read. (C’mon, what else would space travelers do besides look for books upon disembarking? It’s a long way from home and everything brought along was read 1000 times already). If you imagine access opportunities that are first apparent and easiest to acquire from an objective point of view, a new set of expectations and norms, unnoticed by those in the middle of it, might present themselves.

Two characteristics of the epublishing world that didn’t exist with traditional publishing are:

- the creative process is more dynamic than static even after publishing, and thus better reflects the writers’ craft in context of time and culture
- the creative process is more transparent and inclusive to readers, regardless of their physical locations

When I picked up a book decades ago, whether a new release at a store or beloved classic from the library, I was holding something that was frozen in time. Of course, I gave it new life in my imagination, but in terms of the publishing process, it was the end of the line. The book was a product and in a sense, I was a product too. The book was a product of the publishing process and my purchase of it was a product of the promotion process, or at best, a response mechanism that could be aggregated with others to measure the worth of the first product.

What was hidden from me was something that started with a writer’s imagination, a manuscript, multiple revisions, a proposal, perhaps a rejection, perhaps dozens of them, more proposals and more revisions, until eventually there was a printing, a lot of promotion, and some sales. That’s where I as the reader finally came into the picture: at the point where the publisher, writer, agent et al had moved on to something else. It’s as if there was a party, but everyone hosting it leaves just as the guests arrive. Under the traditional model, what was hidden from the writer and publisher was my experience of reading the fruit of all their labor, unless they happened to read a review I wrote. But in those days, unless I was a professional reviewer who could promote a lot more sales, they wouldn’t have cared what I thought. All they wanted from me was a purchase.

Not only has technology changed the writing experience and given the author more control, it has changed the power of the reader as well. That’s critical, because there's been a seismic shift in the way people read, particularly among those growing up as digital natives. I don't just mean ereading here. I mean reading while doing other things (rather than curled up in a chair for long hours without distractions of music, messaging, TV or talking), increased listening to audio books while traveling or working out, and other attention-distractors in their environment that prevent a single focus on the book itself. Ironically, even though literacy rates have increased worldwide, there may be less actual attentive reading hours spent. (Or not; this is a hypothesis that needs testing.) There is so much more to do beside read in one’s non-working time, and more options available to choose from even when one does read. Writers face a lot of competition and if Goodreads profile pages are any indication, they have very little time for reading for pleasure. That’s too bad; my guess is that the most voracious readers traditionally were writers. (More on that later.)

The new world is still evolving in its creation and so have its norms. But some of the old norms are still being assumed, even if they don’t quite fit anymore. Anachronistic terms like slush-pile are still being tossed around, even though readers no longer need a proxy to decide what they’re likely to prefer. What I think we have is not a stack of work where only a fraction would generate a return on investment from mass purchase by a passive reading population with the same cookie cutter tastes. It’s a repository of creative work in a dazzling array of styles and subject matter, in various stages of completion, which needs better tagging and indexing so that it becomes easier for readers to query and choose from, depending upon their inclination at that point.

I certainly agree that there are many works being offered for sale that aren’t finished: they need revision, proofing, editing, or other avenues for sharing that don’t involve financial transactions. So, why are they being offered for sale? Because most support sites for writers assume that the ultimate goal of writing is to sell a product.

But that’s the old way of looking at things. Let’s look at it another way. Suppose I look for books to read on Goodreads or Smashwords or other places I tend to go if I’m in the mood to buy. (I generally read on my ereader but find Amazon or Barnes and Noble prices ridiculous for digital works.) Because there is no approval process required for a writer on those sites, I have a range of books to choose from at various stages in the writing/publishing creative process. To use the earlier imagery, the writer is still at the party when I arrive. We might even talk in a sense.

The writer and I might disagree on the stage a work is in, but that’s where this new dynamic is transparent and beautiful. Epublishing doesn’t carry the same cost burden as print publishing, so the writer is free to revise and adapt at will, even after the work is professionally marketed. The reiteration process itself could possibly become another kind of literary style (epublishing performance art?), and the work is finished when the author, and the readers in turn, decide it is, not whether it’s logistically feasible and marketable.

I don’t buy anything without reading a sample first, and if that and the description are compelling and ready, I’ll buy it unless the price seems unreasonable. If the work reads like a draft in dire need of proofing or editing, I still may download and read it if it’s free and I find it engaging. If the story itself is good, despite the need for proofing, I am happy to give the author kudos and encouragement to keep working at it.

Those who can write a good story aren’t necessarily those who are detail-oriented enough to proofread (especially their own work). They might not have enough distance from the story to edit it, or the design skills to produce a cover, or the savvy to market to the right audience. In truth, a single person who could do all of that is rare indeed, as is an amateur or emerging author who could afford to pay professionals to do what publishing companies did traditionally.

I’ve seen gorgeous covers on works that seem to be in the very first draft stage. This makes no sense to me. I suspect new writers are often led to spend a lot of money on commissioning striking marketing images by those who have no financial incentive to encourage the writer to develop the story first. And once the money is spent on images and marketing packages, the writers might feel the pressure to charge to try to gain some of it back.

I’m wondering if it would make things easier if we could standardize on some stages of process without unfairly labeling people themselves? We already categorize things by genre (which is often unhelpful since life is broader than the categories; Bryn Hammond explains it better here: http://amgalant.com/i-hate-genre/). Why not let writers designate new works by covers that are current-status images rather than for marketing to buyers? If I see a description that seems interesting, and there’s a cover image that gives an indication that it’s still in the Draft (i.e., story concept) phase, I’d be far more tolerant of its shortcomings and would offer encouragement where it was due.

The writer could see how much interest there would be in the story itself and whether to spend more time and money on it or move on to something else. Likewise, there could be a status image for Evolving (i.e., in revision stages), and readers could send in proofreading errors if they’re inclined or questions about areas found to be confusing. Both stages of work should obviously be offered for free since the readers are spending their own time encouraging the writer in the creative process (alpha and beta testers for you IT folks). The marketing image should be commissioned last, after encouragement by readers and a professional-quality proofreader to ensure that it’s ready. Perhaps the revision readers’ indication in their feedback as to how much they’d be willing to pay for it as it existed at that point would help the author decide if it was ready for marketing and what price to offer it at.

For writers not inclined to present the work that way, perhaps readers who take chances on them could use their power to reshape the norms. This is already happening in some ways as peer recommendations on social reading sites become as important as formal promotions. Many readers do offer positive feedback for amateur and emerging writers in their reviews (see some examples from Faerie Godreader’s reviews https://www.goodreads.com/review/list... ) and in their metadata tagging. To my knowledge though, there’s no easily indexed standard for these stages of writing. If there were, it would help those who don’t want to sift through works in progress when considering books, or prevent those new to buying independently published works from being burned by paying for books that clearly weren’t ready to be marketed.

(An important – to me – side tangent; skip if desired & continue to next paragraph) It is a sad state of affairs that access to literacy is still limited for many, even in the wealthiest nations. That doesn’t mean that the people who haven’t had the advantages of good mentors and teachers don’t have stories to tell or ideas to contribute. Traditional publishing leaves them in the cold, but independent publishing and social reading sites don’t have to. People can develop writing skills by reading, and reading skills by writing. The two are complementary. By making connections with readers who can encourage expression and put grammatical structure in context, writers who didn’t have access to good language arts teachers as children can still learn and their overall interest in reading would improve. (It would be a golden age for English majors and language arts teachers if there could be some way of funding compensation for them to pair up with those who are struggling in these areas to teach writing mechanics, or to proofread, edit, or even ghost write for those with stories worth telling.)

Another pressure on even experienced and successful writers seems to be a relentless treadmill of promotion, marketing, and writing the next “product”. The time that authors could spend to just experience life, to muse about it, and to read for the pleasure of it, is curtailed so that they can blog, up the word-count of their WIP for their fans, and generally keep in contact with everyone. It rather makes me sad for them. I want my favorite writers to be able to go into a room and close the door for a few hours a day, or weeks, or year, for time to themselves. I want them to write because they love it and can’t imagine not doing it. I don’t want them to think that they always need to be reaching out to us unless they happen to want to. I promise not to forget them. I’ve yet to read anything promotional about Dostoevsky or Austen, but I’ll still go back and read them because I like the world they created for us, even if we weren’t born yet when they did. And for Howey, Lamott, Kingsolver, Tan, Duncan, McEwan, Murakami, and scores of others, traditionally published or independent, don’t worry. I will go looking for you from time to time. I promise. Ditto for those I’m just discovering. Post when you’re ready, peace to you all when you’re not.

It’s an ever changing world. But for readers and writers with imaginations and vision, a changing world is just another context to explore and respond to.

Happy New Year!